Discussion Main / StrawFeminist

The links you posted aren’t working.

There's a bug in Discussion pages that breaks links. If you copy-paste the URL into your browser it should work.

Thanks for the info.

I agree.

Some examples, at least- as the The Incredibles example- have no relation with misandrism.

Another alternative could be Straw Hembrist, covers the point and is more general than just misandrism.

Men, as a group, are not one of the "certain demographics" that Political Correctness Gone Mad is concerned with protecting. They're Acceptable Targets as far as that trope is concerned.

Yes, it's a Double Standard. That's why it's STRAW Feminist, and not ACTUAL Feminist. It's not supposed to be reasonable. She's SUPPOSED to be a hypocrite who jealously guards women's protected status while hating men.

No, because these behaviours are still attributed to feminism/women's rights in the sense of this trope.

@Septimus Heap I don't see how that's the case, let me name a few examples from the article the Doctor Who examples are literally all about Matriarchies and if we'd take the definition of Feminism about being egalitarianism from a female perspective then these are unrelated, it's like saying that the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power people (who are closer to White Nationalists in every way) are the same, this trope is about misandry and female supremacy, not about Feminism and/or Women's Rights Advocacy. Another example would be the Star Trek one where making a women's advocacy statement and later being axe-crazy unrelated to that statement somehow make her "a Straw Feminist".

Reverted and banned.

A Female Misogynist, maybe? A liar?

Someone with an identity disorder. Who has a lot of issues to work out...

In my experience a teenage girl with a tumblr.

This is a trope as a storytelling device. As in, to make feminism look bad, or a particular form thereof.

I noticed that too, and went to edit, but there was 6 warnings about extending the description.. I guess people were going overboard with the description, so they shortened it.

Shame too, because it seems a lot of elaboration can be given here.

Plus they were trying this to turn into "exaggerated or ridiculous feminism".

Which, thanks to Poe's Law, is indistinguishable from "actual feminism as practiced by some (not all) feminists in Real Life" and thus People Sit On Chairs.

There's probably plenty of elaboration that could be given, but the focus on the narrative purpose of the trope (presenting feminism solely to prove it wrong) seems to me like the only way to make this tropable, and if the only way to keep the definition focused on that core aspect is to limit it to an ultra-laconic form, so be it.

It is interesting that a similar warning is not to be found in the Straw Misogynist article.

Pure coincidence. That article hasn't attracted bad edits in the description, yet.

No, the "Straw" in the name references the Strawman Fallacy, where you misrepresent your opponent's argument (intentionally or otherwise) in order to knock it down.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheWarOnStraw

As that page notes, however, cases where the viewpoint is exaggerated for humor also count.

From what I've seen of real feminists, feminism is not about equality. The only evidence given to support the claim that it is is a "dictionary definition." I have concluded that feminism is a female supremacist movement that enjoys good publicity.

From what I've read of feminism, research of feminists movements and the discussions I've had with people on both sides of the fence (I've talked to active feminists, Radical Feminists (i.e. misandrists who hate men), and men who are pissed off at the entire movement), and I would say you have no idea what you're talking about. In fact, you said feminism enjoys good publicity WHILE CALLING THEM MISANDRISTS (which is in fact against everything feminists actually believe in)!

Feminism IS in fact about equality of both genders, fighting the inequality against sexism against women AND MEN. However, as I explained, people who call themselves "feminists" DO in fact hijack the term and use it when they are in fact misandrists (or Radical Feminists). I have a friend who has been fighting the label of being a "female supremacist" for years just because she is a feminist and works actively as a social worker trying to help women and men who get screwed over!

Thankyou for in fact proving my point that feminism gets a bad name because of supremacist misandrists. Thankyou for validating my entire argument.

Don't talk about "Evidence" when it's obvious you know nothing about the subject matter.

Laudanum:

You are a perfect example of what I have seen. Any questioning, any bringing of actual observations gets met with "you have no idea what you are talking about; feminists say they are about equality." Well, yes, they say they are about equality.

Here's what you don't do. You don't show me a counter-example. You don't show me where any feminists have advocated to change something that benefited women at the express expense of men. Instead you say "it's obvious you know nothing about the subject matter." Well, I think I'm spot on.

Don't tell me that feminism is about equality. Show me. Give me evidence. Or, if I am 100 percent correct, and feminism is just a supremacist movement with good publicity, tell me not to talk about evidence and say I don't know anything. Oh, look, apparently I am 100 percent correct.

Pvblivs: Actually that person is right. Mainstream feminism (aka liberal feminism) is in reality equality-based.Radical feminism has been known to include misandrist elements in recent times. If you want some evidence that proves it to some degree, then here's this page made by radical feminists and be sure to check out the comments also. http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/radfem-ological-images-chef-boyardee/

here's a bonus:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2vBt8Za_yA

Black Jaguar:

I looked at your first link. The number of "mainstream feminists" who commented to disagree with the assessment stands at zero. I don't know how you think that is supposed to be evidence that "mainstream feminism" is equality-based. Seriously, every single commenter agreed with the notion that the Chef Boy-ar-dee ad was encouraging the humiliation of little girls (or worse.)

The You Tube video was rather meandering and still only talked about "radical" feminists. Why, exactly, am I supposed to take this as evidence that "mainstream feminists" are equality-based? You aren't showing me any feminism that is about equality.

So where are the "mainstream feminists" that actively oppose this nonsense? It seems to me they're all saying "you go girl." Look, we are in agreement that "radical feminists" are sexist and hate men. You don't need to give me evidence of that. The claim that you are trying to support is that "mainstream feminists" are not sexist and do not hate men.

I agree that the description is a little far-fetched, but now YOU'RE the one saying what "feminism is". Besides, how can anything that only focuses on one aspect (in this case one gender) of a subject be about "equality"? That is just not logical.

Pbvis, Zartyzzo and Black Jaguar

Yes, I gave a definition of what I have come to view feminism as. Feminism is perhaps not the right term to what it has now become. When it started, the goal of feminism was about bringing women from a position of inferiority to where there was equality for both genders. Equality for both genders was the ultimate goal, however it was the inequality of women that was the primary focus because women were in a position where they were deemed inferior to men. This inequality was what they went out to fight. Over the years, as women and men have become equal in 'first class' worlds, feminism became a fight against the subsets of inequality for both genders as they stood - i.e. areas where either women or men are being put down or prejudiced against.

The central dogma of feminism has always been aiming for a position where women stood in a position of equality with men - and has now become "equality for all genders" - with transsexualism being pulled into the mix. When inequality against men started up in the last few decades, with women attempting for superiority against them with hate against men - i.e. misandry - mainstream feminism was not a part of this.

Misandry is a belief that women are superior to men. This goes against the central tenant of feminism! Unfortunately misandry does in fact originate from feminism. When feminism started to diversify some good 40 years ago, with equality for women having a good foothold in modern society, some women broke away in a separate faction with a different agenda. They believed that men had proven through their violence and oppression of women, that they were either too primitive/primal (or stupidly violent etc.) to bring society to the next level, or that - in extremist cases - men should be taken out of the picture altogether. This was called Radical Feminism, and is where misandry got a hold. Remember the woman who shot Andy Warhol? She was a Radical Feminist who believed that men were inherently inferior to women. Her manifesto is a work of Insane Troll Logic at its highest, seriously.

This is the difference between Feminism and Radical Feminism. Although quite a few mainstream feminists nowadays will only aim to help women who are in a position of inequality, there is a large contingent that now believe that they should help men who are in a position of inequality too, and fight all sexism no matter where it is or to who it is being applied.

I do apologize for not calming down enough before to explain this and snapped back at Pvblis. That was wrong of me. It does make me very angry when I see Misandry and Feminism being lumped together because - as I said - I've seen what the result has been for my friend. This is something I need to work on and is not something I should take out on other people. However, I do stand by the fact that you, Pbvlis, are wrong in this matter. I can only say that if you think feminism and misandry are the same, you are wrong. However, if you sincerely believe that, then no evidence I can give you will tell you otherwise. And I say this after having a similar discussion with a Radical Feminist who believed all men were rapists who needed to die, and kept asking for me to supply 'evidence' to the contrary - which did not go well.

There is a very sad fact that it is the extremists whose voices are heard the loudest. E.g. you never hear about the ordinary Christians who go about their lives and go to Church on Sundays. You only hear about the Evangelists and extremists who use those "God hates Fags" signs. The same is with Feminism. You will rarely hear from the reasonable contingent who go about their lives, living by the tenants of feminism. You will only hear the Radical Feminists screaming for the blood of men, women who laugh at the idea of castration as payback for millennia of suffering. You wanted to know why you hardly ever hear from those who are from the quiet mainstream? They aren't the ones who get time on TV or who spend hours on youtube making videos because they aren't vindictive and their agenda isn't extreme enough to draw attention. If they are in politics, you will rarely hear about any extreme agenda that would mark them as feminists because they don't have one.

My experience with feminism is mainly through my friend and what she has introduced me to. I went to a meeting with a group two weeks last Friday, a group of about ten women who believed in feminism and knew each other through their similar jobs and interactions with each other. Two were social workers, five worked at the local hospital, one was a medical student I knew from way back etc. And I have no evidence for this and I'm not going to give names that will not mean anything to anyone, but I was witness to a good thirty minute discussion - okay, there was a bit of ranting - where they condemned Radical Feminism and misandry!

If you want literature that supports what I've told you, all you need to do is look up "Radical Feminism" in google. You will find thousands of sources that will confirm what I've told you. Look up "Feminism" in google and you will find the same. You want evidence? It's not hard to find. You can talk with women who will agree with what I've said over facebook! Hell, you'll find men who will agree with what I've said. There are wikipedia articles I found with a five second search!

I was too angry before to say all this articulately, and that is my failing. But I've said it now.

With regards to this trope? Some mention desperately needs to be made to distinguish misandry and feminism, and that the two things are in fact different, no matter how interchangeably they may be used in fiction.

That's all I've got to say now in my long-winded entry. I'm going to send quick PM messages to the people involved in this discussion, because everyone really does deserve an apology for my own angry ranting. I'm sorry I didn't make things clearer. Hopefully I've now made my position clear. Thanks for anyone who took the time to read something this long. I'll come back to this discussion if anyone has any questions or countering arguments that they would like to propose.

~ Laudanum

Laudanum:

You will find that I am a big fan of evidence. Here, the evidence that would convince me would be the banner of feminism actively being flown against misandry. If there were "mainstream feminists" in Washington speaking to Congress against the very measures the "radicals" are trying to implement. At best, we have a situation where only the "radicals" are politically involved. But what is feminism if not a political movement? One feminist speaking before Congress means more to me than a thousand Wikipedia articles.

I am reminded that fundamentalist christians often tell me that "no evidence will convince" me. But the reality is that the "evidence" they give me is not persuasive.

Pvblivs

It is a sad fact that you are very correct when you say that only radicals are politically involved at the moment. The radicals are incredibly politically active while mainstream feminists are not.

Originally, you are quite right, feminism did start as a political movement. However, it went the way of many political movements which are long-lived with ideas rely heavily on individual perspective: it also became a lifestyle choice. Nowadays, feminism - as best I understand it - has more followers as an lifestyle ideology than a political movement. To believe that all genders are equal, that gender prejudice and inequality is wrong, and to follow the tenants of that belief and uphold them. Despite people who live by this ideology meeting, and protesting against inequality - whether inequality against women and men, or just inequality against women - as they find it, there is little left of feminism as a widespread political movement.

The political side of feminism has withered. You would find very little active feminism at the level of congress. Instead radical feminism has taken over and basically over-shadowed moderate feminism to an insane degree.

When I advised looking at google, I gave the Wikipedia article as an example of the consensus of mainstream feminism - that it does exist. However, if you did a search in google, you would find thousands of articles and people speaking up for mainstream feminism, and that was really the point I was trying to make. The entire internet is saturated with both mainstream feminism and radical feminism, and my point was that if you just take a look out there, you will find the evidence you want. Mainstream feminism does exist, even just in the minds of the women - and men - who still believe in its ideals. And that is what matters, that people still believe in the equality that mainstream feminism represents. However, if you type in "radical feminism" into google, you will find thousands of women who believe in radical feminism as well, damning misogyny in men while touting the supremacy of women over men, never seeing the sad irony of their beliefs. And trust me on this, the radical feminists - like any extremist group - will be far more vocal than their moderate counterparts. On youtube you will find women screaming their hate of men and their belief that men are inferior, and providing their "examples" of such behaviour. My advice is you don't try to talk reason to any of these people. You will get a headache.

And this was my point: that both mainstream feminism and radical feminism exist, and the two are wildly different.

Moderate feminism isn't very politically active. The miserable reality is that although you will find many people who call themselves feminists and who live by its ideals, and who join their groups and communities on facebook and livejournal etc. you will rarely find anyone who will stand up for it in a political setting. Feminism has had a feeble decline in politics, and it's rather shocking if anyone stands up for it. The very people who should be screaming at the top of their voices in protest against the radical feminist objective are, at best, talking quietly in the corner of the metaphorical room. Mostly, mainstream feminists don't even like to remind people about the misandry extremists, for fear of being accused of the same thing. Sometimes you will even find radical elements in mainstream feminist communities, all mixed up with in-fighting and arguing, just like any community or fandom.

And that's it really. The two perspectives exist, and they are basically the moderate and extremist divisions of the feminist movement. That's really all I'm trying to say. As for evidence? Here's a couple of sites and articles that might help.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/armchair-commentators-feminism-australia

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/nyregion/camping-for-feminism.html?_r=0

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/may/1366950579/robyn-annear/hashtag-feminism

https://www.facebook.com/mfeminism

Now some on Radical Feminism in particular:

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Radical_feminism.html

http://www.feministissues.com/radical_feminism.html

If you want more, all you have to do is google "feminism" or "moderate feminism" and "radical feminism" or any other keywords to get your evidence. It is very easily accessible.

As for fundemental christians... my point was actually to the contrary, that for fundemental christians their belief in their faith is so all-consuming that they will not even entertain the idea that a contrary agenda could exist. I see hard-line atheism as the same thing. If you believe so strongly in one point of view, it is very hard to entertain its opposite. That was what I was trying to say, although I may not have said it well.

That facebook page wrote "'But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word?' - Ellen Page." One of the commenters says, "Proud, outspoken feminist here! Many women fear the label because of inaccurate stereotypes and their own ignorance about what feminism means. Also, and this one kills me, they are afraid of scaring off men! Personally, I don't give a damn - if a man was going to be afraid of me because I believe in fighting for equality, I say 'see ya'!" Now, you're telling me that "radical feminism" is tarnishing the image of mainstream feminism. Well, if that's true, then feminists need to recognize that people don't see feminism as fighting for equality. And if they want people to see it that way, they will have to show it, not just say it.

Feminism, in all its incarnations, uses "patriarchy" as a scapegoat. If "radicals" are responsible for a tarnished image, saying "patriarchy" about that will only make it worse.

More generally, I think "radical feminism" is real feminism. I further believe that the other "branches" exist to give it cover. I can entertain other possibilities in my mind. But those possibilities keep telling me "there should be other feminist groups speaking before Congress against what the radicals propose." Sure, I see "other branches" talking about fighting. But they only seem to oppose "radical feminist" ideas when some non-feminist or anti-feminist criticizes them. And they forget just as quickly.

I make it a point of personal policy to entertain ideas without accepting them as fact. That is, I explore the implications of what I believe to be an open question or even false. I remember I liked one You Tube video (I think it was called "how to convince an atheist," but I may have the name wrong) where he gave examples of types of evidence that he would find absolutely convincing. That's why I gave you an example of something which I don't see but which would convince me if I did see it. You conceded it doesn't happen. I think you should be asking yourself why it doesn't happen.

- Pvblivs

That second quote you gave - all it said was that that woman wasn't going to hide her beliefs in equality because it might scare off men, and that she doesn't want a man who is afraid of her search for equality. I fail to see how that is tarnishing feminism. In fact, that entire quote is saying that she wants a partner who will be strong and open-minded enough to accept her. I fail to see that is negative.

The first quote you gave? Well, I disagree with it and think it is radically-centered but one or two quotes isn't going to convince me that what I have seen in real life with my own eyes and ears, and what I have read on the internet extensively doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that Feminism is a perfect struggle for equality. A lot of times there is hate, anger and mistrust fueling some of it. "Patriachy" is an obvious scapegoat that some feminists use instead of addressing the issues that undermine the equality of women. And I disagree with that interpretation.

What I am saying is only that Feminism at its heart is geared towards gaining equality. There are a lot of divisions and groups that mix in radical hate, but that is an extremist perspective.

You keep saying that there should be other feminist groups speaking before Congress against radicals. I agree with you. There should. But at the moment the only part of feminism that is so organized is Radical Feminism because the hate and anger fueling that extremist perspective gives a lot of motivation. Just because a group doesn't speak before Congress, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If you measure all groups and factions of various ideologies by such a standard, you would be excluding a huge number of different beliefs and lifestyles. You have to admit, that is pretty ridiculous.

Mainstream Feminism is the moderate section of feminist ideology. They are composed of normal people who simply live their lives by a certain standard, and a lot of them don't care enough about what happens in Congress to interrupt their lives to pursue it. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't - I'm not going to judge that. Although I believe that a mainstream feminist presence should be active in the media, there isn't.

All I can tell you is that I have met a group of mainstream feminists and have been introduced to more via facebook and other social networking sites (although I can't get Twitter to work for the life of me) that think in a similar manner and either dismiss Radical Feminism as stupidity or are outright disgusted.

I have met these people. Are you trying to tell me that their beliefs don't exist? I have given you sources which show that both mainstream and radical feminism exist, sometimes side-by-side. They are the moderate and extremist sections of one ideology. Religions and other ideologies around the world are familiar with the same problem, where their extremist sections get media and internet attention while the moderates just go on living their lives. Should they all be speaking in Congress against the works of their extremist factions? Moderate and orthodox Muslims have to live with the fact that their extremist faction exhibit terrorist sentiments and do terrible things. I have had conversations with people on youtube who don't believe that moderate muslims exist either (I liken the experience to one conversation I had with a Radical Feminist who called me a misogynistic rape apologist... very frustrating and confusing).

Should Mainstream Feminism be doing more to stop their Radical counterparts? I think so definitely! But I also had a conversation with one feminist over facebook who couldn't give a fuck what they did and wrote them off as a sociological mistake!

If you make it a point of personal policy to entertain ideas without accepting them as fact, then you have to have looked at all the sites I gave you, and the thousands more you can find with a simple google search and come to the conclusion that the idea that feminist ideology today has both moderate and extremist faction MIGHT exist.

I am not holding mainstream feminists up as some courageous fighters for justice and equality. They are just a group of people - women and men - who live their lives believing in equality for both sexes, and who occasionally go to meetings or rallies to support their beliefs. If you want to dissect everything everyone of them says for signs of hatred or malice and judge them based on what you see - and you have a biased opinion on this issue just as I have - then you will be the one who has narrowed their mind.

I'm just saying that moderate and radical feminist movements exist. And radical feminists are insanely more organized and determined, driven by hatred. But I have met women - and one guy over facebook so far - who do not believe in that radical viewpoint. And even if they are the ONLY people who believe like that, moderate feminism exists in their beliefs.

What a fallacious understanding of radical Feminism is. Feminism in general is about fighting inequality, and this inequality is usually against women. Losing your privileges isn't the same as losing your rights. Misandry as an actual concept (oppression of men) is silly, as many issues that face men, e.g. custody of children, military service, etc. have their origins in essentalizing the role of men and women and are fought under the umbrella of Feminism not 'anti-Feminism'. Being anti-Feminist would mean you subscribe to the idea that Men and Women have different rights and responsibilities in society, in which case you have no right to speak about 'male oppression'.

Well my understanding of Feminism is that it centers around gender equality. When I say "Radical Feminism" I'm talking about an extremist element who has twisted the core values of Feminism to become Misandry, defending women at the expense of men (which is essentially a sexist concept and works against Feminist core values).

I identify with what I understand are Feminist beliefs, in that all cases of gender inequality where either women or men are treated unfairly or with prejudice shouldn't be tolerated. However, although I try to live by those standards, I am not doing anything to work towards that goal in a wider social context.

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure if you're talking to me or to anyone else on this discussion. My long rants make things a bit difficult.

Laudanum:

Before you criticize the quotes that I gave back at you, remember that they are from your links. They represent the best you have to offer to try to persuade me feminism is about equality. I didn't select my own sites to better fit my views.

I, too, go with what I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears. And I don't ever see feminists pursuing equality. I see the "lip service." But as I have said, it does no good to tell me feminism is about equality. You have to show me. And I don't mean showing me Google echoing the lip-service.

Show me feminists trying to create shelters for male victims of domestic violence (instead of trying to have them treated as the abusers.) Most workplace deaths are male. Show me feminists doing something to change that. Most homeless are male. Show me feminists doing something about that. Show me something that shows that feminists act to correct situations where men are the ones disadvantaged. But you can't — because they don't. "Equality" is no more than a buzzword to them. The reality is that feminists act to increase women's power. They want also to create the illusion that they are about equality so that people don't challenge them. There is simply no evidence that they care about anything else.

You can say that your understanding is that feminism is about equality. My understanding is that it is not.

"If you make it a point of personal policy to entertain ideas without accepting them as fact, then you have to have looked at all the sites I gave you, and the thousands more you can find with a simple google search and come to the conclusion that the idea that feminist ideology today has both moderate and extremist faction MIGHT exist."

Unfortunately, it falls into the same category that I have to consider that the monster of Loch Ness might exist. You see, when I entertain the possibility that some feminists really believe in equality, I think of what I should expect to see if this is the case. I have entertained the idea. I have considered the implications. I have determined that there should be certain evidences to support the idea. Those evidences are nowhere to be found. You see. I bring up the things I want you to show me because I have entertained the possibility. But it seems you don't want me to entertain the possibility. You want me to believe it. I have entertained the belief. I have not accepted it as fact.

Wait, wait, I wasn't criticizing the quotes. I was pointing out how little they have any relevance to the discussion.

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/03/feminist-anxiety-about-domestic-violence-against-men/

See that link I gave you? The title is: "Feminist Anxiety about Domestic Violence against men", just so you know.

...

Now, we have a small problem. If you are going to call evidence of feminists talking about their beliefs in equality as "lip service" that they don't really believe in then I fail to see how your evaluation of evidence and criteria for this issue can be applied.

If I gave you evidence of women creating shelters for men who are the victims of inequality, then even then I think you would come up with some explanation for why it is either a minority view or it doesn't apply.

However, the issue here isn't whether feminists go out and help disadvantaged men. It isn't whether feminists are truly helping society. It is that some women and men believe that equality between sexes is the right way to go and believe in feminist doctrine. It is not what they do with that belief that we are discussing. I brought up my own experiences with feminism to try to explain how I have come to see feminism and how I believe it isn't a negative force, and what I think of as evidence of that. However the issue at hand is that there exists a group of people who believe in a certain ideology. Not that these people go out and are selfless good samaritans (you will remember that the women I talked about worked in the health and services industry, it was their job and I was imparting some of their experiences and beliefs, not saying that they go out on Saturday nights and try to help every poor homeless person in my city).

I have given you not only evidence that there exists a group of moderate feminists and extremist feminists, but how easy and simple it is to find the evidence yourself. And by "evidence" I mean articles showcasing the beliefs of these people.

If you are going to say that all that I have shown you and given you is "lip service" and that these people don't really believe what they are saying, then that is really the exact same thing as if I would say "I believe that all Christians don't actually believe in their faith and what they are saying is just lip service propaganda so they can usher in a political mandate." Show me evidence that this is a negative. From a pure view of scientific method you should recognize the lack of logic in trying to prove a negative. However, if I was truly determined to believe that all Christians were simply trying to push a political agenda and using the idea of "faith" as a cover, no example would ever be enough to assure me that it wasn't. Men and women going out and trying to help the poor in the name of Christianity? Targeted attempts to convert people to their political views. Demonstrations? Propaganda.

I say this because as much as you read the last paragraph and protest that your argument is nothing as exaggerated and ridiculous, if you examine it with objective eyes, I think you will recognize the similarities.

" "Equality" is no more than a buzzword to them. The reality is that feminists act to increase women's power. They want also to create the illusion that they are about equality so that people don't challenge them. There is simply no evidence that they care about anything else."

How about this: http://www.sydneyfeminists.org/help

Or maybe this: http://feminspire.com/feminism-its-good-for-men-too/

Oh no, but all of this the thousands and thousands of websites out there saying similar things, they are all lip service and propaganda. They are all said by feminists who are trying to push their political agenda and don't believe what they are saying. Every single one of millions of those articles are liars.

I gave you those google sites as an example of how easy it is to find people talking and discussing the topics. I'm giving you these sites because it took me less than 5 minutes to find the ones I didn't know about. They were on the first page I searched! It is so easy to find rivers of text with women and men who believe in this ideology. But you want to believe that all these people who say they believe in this ideology are just paying lip service. I mean, if I wanted to be pedantic, I could point out how homeless men and workplace deaths have nothing at all to do with gender inequality. I could point out that my point of view has always been that Radical Feminism has become far too virulent in recent years and the passive stance of moderate feminism and their impotence in the face of such aggression is partly to blame.

I could give you another site: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/07/feminism-domestic-violence-men

I have asked you to entertain the idea that moderate and extremist feminism both exist.

You say you do entertain that idea...with the same veracity as the Loch Ness monster myth.

Yes, truly you are being fair and impartial and looking at all the evidence apart from your obvious bias and conviction.

I hope that you truly have legitimately looked at both sides of the argument and evaluated them equally, looked at the evidence I have given you, looked at the evidence for your own argument and made a fair assessment. From your argument here I think it is about as likely as the idea that American gun violence isn't deeply connected to psychosocial problems in the standard community infrastructure that are as yet unaddressed. I mean, when your response to my question of "can you accept that a social group of people believe in a certain ideology" is "Why haven't they appeared in Congress" I have to question exactly where you learned logical egress, but I think there is a probability that you're assessment is fair.

I don't want you to believe in feminism, that feminism does good things in society, that it is a worthwhile cause or that it is heartily fighting against extremist feminism.

I only want you to really truly entertain the possibility that a group of people believe in moderate feminism. Not that they are doing anything with that belief. Just that they believe. That's all I've ever wanted from you.

If you tell me you have entertained that possibility and judged in the negative, then I really do believe you.

And I'm sorry that that is your world view.

"Now, we have a small problem. If you are going to call evidence of feminists talking about their beliefs in equality as 'lip service' that they don't really believe in then I fail to see how your evaluation of evidence and criteria for this issue can be applied."

Well, people can talk about their beliefs in anything. But it is their actions that are more indicative of their true beliefs. When feminists say they want equality between men and women, but (for example) build shelters for female victims of domestic violence and send male victims to prison, I do not believe their claim of pursuing equality to be sincere. I start to regard statements as "lip service" when I see actions that contradict it.

"If I gave you evidence of women creating shelters for men who are the victims of inequality, then even then I think you would come up with some explanation for why it is either a minority view or it doesn't apply."

Actually, it wouldn't be hard. You could start with Erin Pizzey. There is the technical point that she is not a feminist. In fact, she is anti-feminist. Now, if you showed me a feminist doing that, I would have to rethink my position.

Now I want to point out a particular discrepancy. We have been talking about what feminists believe, say, and do. Not all women are feminists. In fact, most aren't. If you look for an example of a woman acting contrary to my assessment of feminist behavior, you are likely to find several. They just won't be feminists.

"If you are going to say that all that I have shown you and given you is 'lip service' and that these people don't really believe what they are saying, then that is really the exact same thing as if I would say 'I believe that all Christians don't actually believe in their faith and what they are saying is just lip service propaganda so they can usher in a political mandate.'"

When choosing a hypothetical claim for use as an example, you might want to try one I will actually dispute. I am already convinced that most christians do not believe their faith. And it would not surprise me if it were all of them.

"Yes, truly you are being fair and impartial and looking at all the evidence apart from your obvious bias and conviction."

Your sarcasm is duly noted. But I have told you the type of evidence that would convince me. Why do you think the type of evidence I request is unreasonable (aside from the fact that no feminist acts in that manner)?

Here's a quote from your first link:

"The failure to treat domestic violence and sexual harassment with the seriousness it deserves only makes matters worse. Nevertheless, a fair share of the limited attention to intimate partner violence against men has been generated by anti-feminist men’s rights advocates. This makes it all the more important to see a growing number of feminist-identified men’s organizations such as Men Can Stop Rape and CONNECT, doing work to reach out to men in an effort to create spaces for rethinking masculinities and reducing violence." [Emphasis mine.]

Feminists were ignoring the issue of male victims of domestic violence. It was anti-feminists who brought the issue to light. Now, Jennifer Gaboury wants feminist groups to "show they care too." Well, it's fair to ask whether they really care or they just want to stop the M R A s from making a fuss. Here is the nature of the fuss.

• Feminists first pushed through "mandatory arrest" laws but found that women were getting arrested at alarming rates.
• Feminists successfully lobbied to have the laws changed to identify an "assumed perpetrator." This was to be based on physical characteristics that correlated strongly with maleness. Use of a weapon or any other criteria that might indicate a female perpetrator was to be disregarded.
• Finally, they renamed domestic violence as "violence against women" to further ignore male victims and pretend they did not exist.

Now, these are the claims of an advocacy group. I do not vouch for them being entirely correct. However, this interest now shown by feminists seems more geared to getting men's rights advocates to stop making a fuss than to getting Washington to do anything.

You tell me that the thousands of feminists who speak to Congress are not representative of feminism as a whole. You tell me that the hundreds of thousands who march in streets around the nation are not representative of their cause. Supposedly, it is some great coincidence that all the politically active feminists want to make men out as second-class citizens at best. While, that is possible, I don't think it likely. But, if it is the case, the only way for "moderate feminists" to disassociate themselves from the politically active feminists will be to stop identifying as feminist, or become politically active themselves and start producing the type of evidence I have been asking for.

A - typo ""If I gave you evidence of women creating shelters for men who are the victims of inequality, then even then I think you would come up with some explanation for why it is either a minority view or it doesn't apply." Is meant to be "If I gave you evidence of FEMINISTS creating shelters for men who are the victims of inequality, then even then I think you would come up with some explanation for why it is either a minority view or it doesn't apply." Obviously the first doesn't make a huge amount of sense considering the insanely tiny percent of all women that are feminists.

"Well, people can talk about their beliefs in anything. But it is their actions that are more indicative of their true beliefs."

Really? So if you believe in equality you have to go out and fight for it? It isn't enough just to believe in it and maintain it in your daily life?

Requiring evidence for belief and faith..

What kind of evidence? The evidence you asked for has to do with the actions of people working under a title of "feminism." You lump in both radical and moderate feminists under the same banner and so you will continue to see contradiction in action as radical feminism - the more vocal and active component - moves against the idea of male equality. You won't even accept that Radical Feminism is violating the central dogma of feminist doctrine.

Shelters for homeless men? Workplace deaths? Have nothing to do with inequality as far as I know. Abuse against men? Now THERE is something that evidence would give you pause.

But I can't give it. Do you know why? Because it doesn't currently exist. I wish Feminists WERE helping men who have abuse problems, but they aren't. They're only helping women at the moment. And at the moment they are only helping women with problems of homelessness, financial difficulty and families that require it. Unfortunately as much a men need help in terms of sheltering the homeless and domestic abuse, women and children also need such help, and unfortunately the quotient for women and children requiring help is a bit higher than that for men at the moment, at least in my country, but also in the US too, I think. Personally, I would be glad for any help for some of the people I met with as a med student, even if it came from a completely morally bankrupt organization, like some sort of bank.

As I said, moderate feminism is not only acting around at a very low level compared with radical feminism, but there are a huge amount of things I wish they WERE doing. I am only arguing for the fact that some people believe in a particular ideology, not that they do anything with it. If you make a direct link between faith and action, it is understandable why you find the truth so hard to accept. An action is easy, easily done in the name of one cause while actually done in another. An action can be interpreted any way it needs to be. Faith and belief in an ideology is something that cannot be so easily misinterpreted. If you have real trouble believing that people even believe in their own religion, then I can see why a political agenda or ideology to live by would seem too abstract or ridiculous.

You might consider, though, the real fact that your interpretation of other people's actions and faiths might be wrong. A sincere consideration that other people's motives might be sincere. It might help improve your disposition.

Why do you think I gave you the link? To show you that feminism (radical or otherwise) has done its damage but it is moderate feminism that is working to make the change. I'm glad anti-feminists brought this to the forefront and made such an issue. Hopefully this will drive more moderate feminists to stand up for men's rights. I've already said how angry a lot of radical feminist actions make me, why they happen and how moderate feminism lets it go on. There are a lot of things I wish Moderate Feminism was doing as a politically active community to help a lot of different causes. At the moment it isn't doing much while it should be trying to stop the tide of extremists; it might split from the Feminism banner to become something new in the future. Sadly, I fear it will take a few decades before moderate feminism develops the political edge it needs to "prove you wrong." Or prove me right.

But I'm straying from the point of this argument. The point is that two different ideologies of feminism exist, even if all moderate feminism is nowadays is a small group of people corresponding over facebook and doing nothing while Radical feminism takes over. However, you won't even admit to the possibility of that. Not really.

The feminists that you are talking about who speak to Congress talk about certain issues and rally around certain banners. So do those who walk in the streets. As far as I can tell quite a number of the causes they march for are that of moderate feminism. Some of those causes are for Radical Feminism, and some serve both causes. Do you know why? Because a few thousand feminists rallying around different causes aren't representative of feminism as a whole. A lot of these causes are in the voice of Radical Feminism because it is the women who are angry enough to become misandrists who want to brow-beat everyone else's beliefs.

Statistical analysis 101.

Do you know what might be a more accurate approximate representative of feminism as a whole? The thousands of sites and articles which talk about the different aspects of feminism and what they mean. And even that would only count as a random selection.

Look, this is getting us nowhere. Honestly. You've basically made the point that unless you see what you call "Evidence" of feminists working against the agenda of radical feminism, you will not conclude that moderate feminists exist. You are not going to look at the thousands of men and women speaking out in advance of moderate feminism and against misandry and believe what they are saying. If you want to believe that they are all liars, that's your right. My mistake for giving you a hypothetical that you find ridiculous (you don't believe that the Christian faith has no basis or that the people who believe in it are doing so for self-serving reasons, you believe millions of people don't believe at all… wow, that is some amazing faith in the perspective of the pragmatic liar), but the fact stands. Tens of thousands of people, even those who rant and argue on the internet are all liars, lying about their beliefs.... for what purpose? The people on facebook who talk about their faith in moderate feminist ideology aren't getting anything by it. They just believe in it and live their lives by it. I'm a little confused as to why you find that so hard to believe? Ah, but if they are liars, I could be lying right? This entire argument was a falsehood constructed... why? Well, I'm sure you'll think of some reason why I'm trying to deceive you.

Ah, wait, I just realized... so in fact all the people who profess to believe in moderate feminism are liars and those who believe in radical feminism are telling the truth? That's some twisted use of logic.

Well, it's been nice arguing with you. I'm sorry I couldn't convince you of my argument, although I'm still confused by the logic of yours. I think we've probably exhausted both our own patience with this discussion. I've at least seemed to have found a new way for hitting my head extremely hard against a brick wall. Which was fun. This will most likely by my last entry. Best of luck to you.

~ Laudanum

"'Well, people can talk about their beliefs in anything. But it is their actions that are more indicative of their true beliefs. When feminists say they want equality between men and women, but (for example) build shelters for female victims of domestic violence and send male victims to prison, I do not believe their claim of pursuing equality to be sincere.'

"Really? So if you believe in equality you have to go out and fight for it?"

More a case of someone fighting for women-only scholarships probably doesn't believe in equality. (I'm sure you meant to include the third statement in my quote, which is quite clarifying, but accidentally omitted it.

"Shelters for homeless men? Workplace deaths? Have nothing to do with inequality as far as I know."

What do you think inequality is? Feminists have focused on the fact that most corporate executives are male. That is, indeed, an inequality (though some argue that it reflects who puts in the effort to pursue the position.) Over 90 percent of workplace deaths are male. That is also an inequality. Feminists see fit to ignore it. You say you don't see what it has to do with inequality. When the results in numbers favor men, you see the inequality right there. When they favor women (by a factor of 13 to 1) you don't see what it has to do with inequality ("who cares that men are pushed into more dangerous jobs?")

"You are not going to look at the thousands of men and women speaking out in advance of moderate feminism and against misandry and believe what they are saying."

Well, pay attention to what they are saying. They are addressing men's rights activists (mostly) and telling them to let feminists take care of it. Well, the way feminists have "taken care of it" so far has been a disaster.

"I'm sorry I couldn't convince you of my argument, although I'm still confused by the logic of yours."

I don't think you've even been paying attention to mine. I think you have been looking for nuggets that you can remove from context and ridicule. I state that I think the "moderate feminists" are insincere because the only action they seem to take is to tell men's rights activists that "they care" and "feminism will handle it." Meanwhile, those feminists that are actually active are pushing more legislation to turn men into second-class citizens at best. Rather than argue that any of those observations are wrong, you ignore them outright. Instead you just write "Ah, wait, I just realized... so in fact all the people who profess to believe in moderate feminism are liars and those who believe in radical feminism are telling the truth? That's some twisted use of logic."

But you ask for what purpose would feminists lie. It's quite simple. They seek to quiet men's rights activists so they won't conduct their own marches and they won't speak before Congress. If they convince enough people that "feminism will take care of it," the feminists that appear before Congress won't have any resistance.

You see the "radical feminists" live their lives by their ideology. They believe and they act. The "moderates" posts some blogs telling the critics not to worry. But they don't have time for activism, even though you say they live their lives by it. Feminism is activism. If they are not active, they are not living their lives by it. But maybe quelling the critics to pave the way for "radical feminism" to be the only voice heard in Congress is their activism. But, if that is the case, we may conclude that they believe as the "radicals" do.

The fact that I've said from the beginning that I believe moderate feminists need to do much more to be more active in society, and you've just spent an entire reply telling me that, shows me you haven't listened to a word I've said. You have done exactly what you have criticized me of doing: you have been looking for nuggets that you can remove from context and ridicule.

You really don't listen. I believe moderate feminists need to do a HUGE amount more if they wish to be taken seriously as the radical feminists are. I have continuously and repeatedly said that.

All I was trying to say was that a group of of people who believe in certain ideals exist. That was it.

I believe that if moderate feminism wants to make a mark to do anything in the world, they need to be INSANELY more active. And I believe I've told you that. Repeatedly (although I haven't used the word 'insanely').

I have only been arguing one point: that this group exists. Not that they are doing anything even remotely close to what they should be doing if they want to have an impact. The only feminists I know just work within the spheres of their lives living by their ideals they do NOT go out and fight for it, and I believe that if they want to be taken seriously that that is exactly what they need to do.

I still don't understand your point on belief and ideals, though. I believe in a certain set of morals and so I live by them. However, I am not trying to go out and make other people believe in them, otherwise I should be out fighting for them. That is what is wrong with the moderate feminism that I know. They live by the ideals they believe in, but while they call moderate feminism an active political movement, they don't go out and fight for it. If moderate feminism is to became anything more than a passive group of people living by their ideals than they HAVE to go out and fight for it. If they want to be down radical feminism then they have a huge amount they need to do.

My argument has only been one thing all along: this group of people exist. I agree completely that they need to do an insane amount of work to become an active political movement, though.

Again, I don't think that to believe in a set of ideals you have to go out and fight for them, just live by them. But if you want to be an active political group, then you DO have to fight. I completely agree with you that if moderate feminism is to be taken seriously it needs to be much much more active. However, the only point I was arguing for was that this group exists.

Do you understand now?

Also, you've made this strange point about moderate feminists lying. I wasn't trying to say that none of them are liars. I was just trying to point out that thousands and thousands of people aren't all telling the same lie. I'm not sure where you've gone with that. And yes, radical feminism pushing to make men second class citizens is a real threat that moderate feminists SHOULD be fighting against and yet are not.

I'm pretty sure this will be my last reply, but I will check back just in case you want to continue this dialogue.

Laudanum

"You really don't listen."

Actually, I do. But I don't always agree. I am quite aware that you keep saying that there are "moderate feminists" who are all inactive politically. Meanwhile, the radicals are very active. I have simply decided that the claim is not plausible.

There are people that claim to be "moderate feminists." Now, any given individual might be active or inactive. But with a large group, one expects to find some activism. It is entirely missing. As an analogy, it is like I have been told that someone is flipping a fair coin and I see "heads" come up 1000 times in a row. I begin to believe that what I have been told is not true. And I form hypotheses that better fit the data I actually see.

"Do you understand now?"

I understood what you said the first time around. Drop the patronizing tone. You have said yourself that if "moderate feminists" are consistently inactive that they will not be taken seriously. That people like myself will conclude that they are not as they say they are is both a reasonable and a predictable outcome based on that premise. Using my earlier analogy, you really believe that the coin flip is fair. And you are sure that if you just find the right words, you can convince me it is fair. But the problem is that the data do not fit what I expect to find based on what I have been told. I conclude that what I have been told is incorrect. If the empirical data change, I will revise my assessment. There is a threshold beyond which I must conclude that "moderate feminists" are, as a group, not sincere.

So really....You are basing your evaluation of someone believing in a certain ideology upon the way they act. From the inactivism of the group I assert are believing in a moderate feminist ideology you cannot agree that such a group exists. If they are not active in a distinctive way from radical feminism then there is nothing to distinguish them."

Fair's fair. I get it. I have my point of view, that this group exists, however you require physical proof of their ideology not just words.

We actually came to this conclusion some while back here: "Look, this is getting us nowhere. Honestly. You've basically made the point that unless you see what you call "Evidence" of feminists working against the agenda of radical feminism, you will not conclude that moderate feminists exist."

I understood your point, and you understood my point, but we argued because we wanted to convince the other person of our point of view, or rather I wanted to convince you that moderate feminism exists and you rebutted my argument. I did say we didn't have to agree, but I didn't stick to that and got caught up. So first I tried to get you to concede to the existence of moderate feminists, and then we argued about the nature of activism in relation to belief, and I disagreed with you on that, and we finally ended up here.

I think we've finally come to a point where we understand and agree with each other. Or rather we've come to a point where we agree that we understand each other.

I do truly hope that what I believe of as "moderate feminists" who believe in equality - my belief which is consistent with my experience but not yours - does increase their activism and distinguishes themselves from Radical Feminism. I think the world will be a much better place if they do so, and maybe you can revise your assessment as the empirical evidence changes.

The difference in our experience does change the way we view things. And because I met a group of people who call themselves moderate feminists and work in small ways in their daily work towards equality, I felt I needed to defend their existence. And I don't. And if I hadn't met them I might be as skeptical as you.

I apologize for the patronizing tone. I will blame my own social ingratitude on the bad pain and the painkillers of the past two weeks. Ahem.

It's been nice arguing with you. No, really, it has. The last person I argued with over a long period of time kept calling me a rape apologist and a misogynist so you are definitely a vast improvement.

Alright, then.

~ Laudanum

to Laudanum (and a lesser extent Pvblivs)

I thought you would appreciate that by now the debate that you had is becoming/has become a troupe. This debate has played itself out on reddit and in the comments sections of news sites thousands of times. I think it would be nice to make an official troupe of it somewhere (not here because it's not really something that's portrayed in art) simply because it would save reasonable people a lot of time not to have to 'provide evidence' and insist over and over that they, as well as 'feminists' truly believe in equality.

some key aspects/stages of the debate troupe:

feminist switches from the normal internet "we're all liberals here" type rhetoric to "politely debating with a conservative" tone.

ambiguously define 'equality'

specifically define equality in a typical modern progressive fashion.

completely ignore easily google-able and overwhelmingly more common mainstream feminist reading materials in favor of a handful of cherry picked crazies.

towards the end we see the classic "I directly quote something you said" and explicitly discredit that one statement as a way of derailing the entire argument.

No, it really doesn't.

I think the fact that a significant number of people believe that the tenants of feminism revolve around gender equality, should be enough to indicate that the title should be changed.

Let me explain: as far as I can tell, everyone here agrees upon the meaning of "misandry", while the interpretation of "feminist" is wildly debated. We all agree that "misandry" is the Spear Counterpart to "misogyny", however we cannot agree that all feminists are misandrists. As feminism has evolved into an ideology with different interpretations - as demonstrated by the random sample of this discussion group - we should be using the title that everyone agrees means the same and intended thing.

For all intents and purposes, "Straw Misandrist" fits the description of the trope and assigns an understanding to the title that is not dependent on political or ideological affiliation and offends nobody.

...

... In other words: I agree with you.

Personally I don't think this trope should be about a legitimacy of real feminist movements so mach as the misrepresentation of feminism in fiction. I think if we understand it from that standpoint we'd keep the topic more neutral. At the end of the day we are talking about strawmen here, or strawomen?

The problem is that this article, as it is now, includes examples that aren't just straw figures, but also "regular" feminist views expressed poorly, as well as clear views held by the more extreme ends of the feminist spectrum. There are a LOT of weird ideas that fall under the feminist umbrella nowadays, so yeah, calling it "Straw" Feminist is a bit misleading.

The article is about "feminism as depicted so that it can be proven wrong by the work". Examples that don't fit that ought to be removed.

The straw part comes from mischaracterizing of femenism to the point it seems as if the character in question is sexist and doesn't actually know what the politcal belief is in any shape or form. For example the justice league example in the western animation section, where the character forgets that men can do good and even dismisses the part where a man saved her life at young age (thereby allowing her to start her mad plot). The straw before any politcal belief means its not the key element just the lamer gist of it

It is called "Straw Feminist" (or "Straw Misandrist") because it is not nice and un PC to remind people that there are real over the top anti-men feminism (although it is a marginal, passe, and shrinking subgroup) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto

I wish it was called "Beyond the pale Feminism" the fear of it is beyond the pale, the practice it self is beyond the pale, and the use in a story is beyond the pale.

@Pcj "Straw Feminist" is not just a stereotypical feminist character, but one who is a straw-man used to demean feminism in general or as whole. If you think about it, they don't even have to be stereotypes. For example, you can have a paranoid feminist Conspiracy Theorist worried about the extermination of the female gender by the government as a way of saying they're worried about type of prejudice that just aren't there on a societal level despite the fact that paranoid conspiracy isn't a (common) stereotype amongst feminists.

The fact people use stereotypical feminists as ex.s, just for being stereotypes, kind of makes me wish there was a trope for stereotypical feminists who aren't used to represent feminism as a whole. Seeing how one can criticize their views or acknowledge their existence while also acknowledging that there are many different feminist ideologies and some are actually quite reasonable.

I do find that odd now that you mention it.

I really wish the two would be met together with "Straw Bigot" sometimes, as both seem to be dishonest and over-simplistic approaches to complex social topics.

@ Bids Dibs is this trope about being reasonable or not reasonable though? (Probably the latter now that I think about it though, the use of "strawman" suggests logical fallacy)

Poe's Law?

Well, the point, I think, is that strawmen literally can't exist in real life, by definition. A strawman opponent is specifically defined as one created by an author for the explicit purpose of making a particular belief or position look bad, thus making it easier to "prove" that this position is wrong. A real-life person, no matter how extreme or otherwise unconvincing their beliefs might be, can't possibly fit this definition. I agree it could probably be stated more clearly, but the point is a pretty sound one.

Especially since TV Tropes is about cataloguing fictional tropes (such as strawmen), and not real-life people (such as feminists that someone doesn't like).

Also it's been there for a while, and so far I don't think I've seen it make the article any worse...

The problem is that this fails the most basic of logic. A. Strawmen can't exist IRL B. "Straw Feminsts" exist IRL ergo straw feminists are not straw at all, just IRL extremists (whether they are or aren't an insignificant minority is irrelevant here, the important bit is that they exist).

The statement is not only blatantly false, it is inflammatory and is included as part of a ban on IRL examples meant solely to prevent flaming. And age has no bearing on its value, contribution, or correctness.

Um, where, exactly, is "B. Straw Feminists exist IRL" coming from? I thought the whole point was that no, as a matter of fact, they don't exist IRL, again, just by definition. Extreme feminists may exist in real life (just like extreme anything may exists in real life), but the whole point is that they don't fit into this article, not being "straw-" anything.

Age has bearing when your argument is that having this in the article "adds fuel to the fire." It was added about 2 months ago, IIRC, and I haven't seen any flame wars about it so far, even though this is always a fairly active article. There was a couple of people who edited the line, mostly to make it longer or elaborate on it in some way, but so far it seems you're the first person who wants to delete it outright, if I am not mistaken, and none of the previous edits led to any flame wars.

Check. The entire point of a Straw Feminist is that they are clearly written as objects of ridicule. Real people cannot be designed as objects of ridicule. If an example doesn't meet that criterion (for instance, if an extreme feminist's views are portrayed as fair and reasonable within a work), it's a bad example.

@girlyboy: I want to shorten it, not delete it. All it needs to say is "Please refrain from adding Real Life or Truth In Television examples in this page" If someone is curious as to why they can check this discussion page

@Iaculus: You are defining a term, then using the self defined name of the term as proof. Of course real people aren't designed as an object of ridicule. But the actual content of description fits real people, that description is: a misandrist who advocates female supremacy and the denial of rights to men. Both misogyny and misandry are real, but the tropes (staw misogynist as well) wording strongly suggest that every depiction of misandry or misogyny in fiction is a strawman, and that real cases are impossible.

I think the issue is, that both articles seem to focus too much on the definitions of misogyny and misandry without sufficient focus on the straw aspect. Also the straw feminist article suggests feminism IS misandry... and now that I think about it, specifies "drawn" instead of depicted (suggesting a comic or cartoon only).

I think the following line: A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them. Would be better as: A character whose misandry is presented as feminism for the purpose of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.

And to add some more focus to the straw aspect in both articles.

This is the trope's description in full. It follows precisely the definition I'm using.

A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.

This trope often relies heavily on a pro-female, anti-male version of Mars and Venus Gender Contrast. Compare Does Not Like Men for a less extreme, more rounded version and Licensed Sexist for the comedic version.

The misandry is simply a common manifestation of the trope. The central purpose is that the feminist be designed to be proven wrong or ridiculed.

Next time, I would advise you to read the article you're complaining about.

@taltamir: Yeah, I'm not getting it. "Strawman" is obviously a well-established pre-existing term, not something this article is trying to define for the first time ever. Saying that this article describes straw-people is not a claim that people who hold extreme beliefs are impossible or don't exist in real life. It's simply a statement that this page is describing the use of fictional devices, not the political or social beliefs of real people. Not because real people can't possibly share the views spouted by these fictional devices, but simply because real people aren't what the article is about. The article is about fictional devices that are crafted for a specific purpose. Which real people aren't. This bit of the description is really just meant to make clear why you shouldn't try to talk about real-life feminists here. I don't understand where the claims of this being a logical fallacy come from.

I can agree, I suppose, that the line "Related to Straw Misogynist, the anti-female version of this," wrongly implies that this trope is simply "Straw Misandrist". In practice, however, misandry probably would be used as "straw feminism" most of the time when brought up in fiction, so it'd likely still fit into this article. Maybe that particular line should be changed to make it clearer that it is not meant to imply feminism itself has anything to do with misandry (since implying misandry=feminism is itself a strawman argument against feminism :P ), but I don't see how this is connected to your claims of the article being flawed as a whole.

And in any case, I don't see what this has to do with the issue you brought up of deleting the "as real people are not crafted for a specific purpose" bit. Perhaps it can be discussed as a separate issue. See below.

I see the issue now. My understanding is that strawman is a MISrepresentation of a certain view meant to be torn down. The article takes the view that a strawman is any representation of a fictional trait that the author is disagreeing with. By this type of definition ANYTHING depicted in works of fiction is straw. Straw homophobia, straw racism, straw murder, etc. etc.

I believe that other on this discussion page who have spoken up about it come from the same point of view, which raises the question, which is the correct definition of strawman. Dictionary.com: "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" Wikipedia: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." meriam-webster dictionary: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted"

Either every dictionary is wrong, or this article is wrong. A strawman is specifically when you misrepresent your "opponent" to easily tear it down.

An example of a REAL straw feminism is when the author attempts to paint ALL or the majority of feminism as misandry. It is a misrepresentation of feminism meant to be torn. The author will tear it down with anti misandry arguments and declare feminism to be trounced.

Actual misandry and misogyny can be misrepresented in theory in order to tear down, but they are considered ridiculous enough by the average person that to date I have never seen anyone bother doing so.

The trope fits the definition. The point is misrepresenting an argument to tear it down, that is what the trope is about and why real life people by definition can't apply. There's no 'oh well they have to specifically say all feminists are misandrists to be straw!!' Any form of showing a character defined as a 'feminist' being misandrist, ugly, horrible or similar foul things with the show acting like this either disproves feminism or DEFINES feminism is a straw argument. If a character is feminist because she's ugly and can't get a date, its a straw argument because this it's throwing away the entire point of feminism and saying someone could only ever believe this rubbish if they had some unrelated reason to be angry at men. Stuff can be a strawman without outright saying 'all feminists are like this' if the straw argument is the only example of a feminist in the show and it never acts like any other views exist on the topic, this is a feminist and they are WRONG. Because the show misrepresented what feminism is, in a way that looks really bad. To use a non-feminism example, lets say the only liberal character on the show is an unwashed hippy baby-murderer who's only liberal because she hates FREEDOM! And there are entire episodes dedicated to the good heroes defeating her by arguing against this stereotype of liberals, instead of any actual liberal policies. It becomes 'disagree with her because she's mean!' rather than 'liberals have the wrong idea', and is a bad debate technique regardless of which side is actually right. So no, strawmen cannot be real lfie because the strawman trope is defined by being 'a stereotype/innacurate argument presented as if it's the opponant, to make them look bad'. I suppose we could have real life examples of people USING the straw feminist fallacy but that'd probably start flame wars because politicians/news reporters/columnists/regular people on the street use strawmen a lot. Basically any debate will have one guy who does this, even by accident.

"Um, where, exactly, is 'B. Straw Feminists exist IRL' coming from?"

Tallamir put "straw feminists" in quotes. By removing those quotes, you misrepresent the argument. There are people in real life (for example the one who uses the handle "Feminist Frequency" on You Tube) who, if portrayed in a work of fiction, would be declared "straw feminists." The claim that a strawman is being used is incorrect, or at least debatable.

You'd probably get better feedback in the Trope Repair Shop.

As the discussion page for this trope, I feel this page is a good place to discuss things about this trope, such as this potential change.

The Trope Repair Shop, IMHO, is a place of absolute last resort for horribly messed up things that can't possibly be fixed without a month of meandering and often redundant discussion followed by some sort of majority vote that will be decided by people who, if we're very lucky, maybe even did as much as skim a quarter of that discussion and glance briefly at the actual page. I'd really rather not go there unless it's really, really, really, really necessary.

For a rename it'd be necessary to go there, but at first I'd like to see what other people's opinions are. If this devolves into a flame war or if no-one is interested either way, then I guess repair shop discussion would be unavoidable. And that would be bad.

I agree on this issue. Saying straw feminism is straw misandry is actually claiming that feminism IS misandry. The straw feminist is set up as "feminists hate men, hating men is wrong, therefore feminists are wrong." I don't see how this can be separated as an issue from the misuse of the definition of straw in this article though. Every dicrionary I checked agreed that you must use the weakest arguments or misrepresent something for it to be straw.

Straw Masculist? Straw Mens Rights Activist?

I suppose whoever came up with Straw Misogynist trope was going for a Spear Counterpart to Straw Feminist, but didn't know what the actual term for an anti-feminist viewpoint is (Straw Antifeminist?) and picked 'misandry'. The result: instead of people who disagree with feminism being misrepresented the trope became 'He-Man Woman Hater only eviler'.

I would support a name change to Straw MRA because a lot of straw misogynists are used to make all men look like terrible woman haters or discount any sort of argument they make on a political scale. We could probably move all the misogynist-but-not-about-men's-rights examples to He Man Woman Hater. Seriously I'm all for equalling this out, to be honest MRA get a lot of bad press that acts like the creepy extremists are all that exists. Yeah they're kinda more of a majority than within feminism but it still irks me that people are all 'this is what men's rights activists are like!' instead of 'these are men's rights extremists/outright misogynists'. It's making it hard to say you're an MRA without everyone immediately deciding you're sexist before you even explain your beliefs. (Incidentely I'm not an MRA or a man, I just find it a disturbing trend they get sidelined when they actually do have a point. Breaking down gender expectations and bias for both sides plz :3)

I think having Straw MRA as a trope sounds like a good idea considering the stereotypes. I also find it weird that people list misandrists who don't label themselves as feminists or show any signs that they are meant to be feminists as examples, when there's already a trope for that (Does Not Like Men). I mean it is straw feminism after all, not straw misandrist.

Good point. Sometimes, it's an earnest effort to show that This Is Not What Mainstream Feminists Actually Believe, but too often it's more of a 'well, I have friends who are X and they aren't offended' thing. Feel free to chop out any value judgements that look a bit weird to you - the wiki's supposed to stay fairly neutral, anyway.

The feminist being drawn as extreme is a straw man argument in and of itself. As you point out, it pigeon holes feminism as being at one end of a continuum of ideas. If there are no other feminists portrayed in the work with less extreme ideas, feminism is painted as being extreme.

By the way, it doesn't matter if there extreme feminists in the real world. Our articles are about how things are used in storytelling.

I think you've missed what I'm saying. Some feminists are extreme. Feminists are not pidgeonholed by mentioning the existence of extreme feminists any more than Christians are pidgeonholed by mentioning the witch trials.

It certainly does matter if there are feminists in the real world, because the feminists in books are generally written to reflect feminism in the real world. Dismissing any mention of real exteme ideas as a strawman for all feminists is very unfair to authors.

And I also pointed out that the trope page includes examples that don't have extreme feminists in a vaccuum from the rest of feminism, or portray them as typical. Wiki Magic has expanded the page beyond just straw feminists, any example of extreme feminism is linked to this page now on the wiki.

The point is that, if only portrayed via an extremist, the thing (feminism or otherwise) is being shown as being extreme. That is the straw man.

"In the World Of Darkness game Werewolf: The Apocalypse, the all-female Black Furies fit this trope to some extant. While some are into the spirituality of womanhood and/or seek gender equality and reproductive freedom, others are on a sacred quest to castrate every male they come across. But even the more well-rounded Furies have the Tribal Weakness of an easier time frenzying against men due to pent-up frustration against them. They eventually became more well-rounded with later editions, going from man-hating Amazons to a mystical cult of warrior women that worshiped Gaia in her guise of Artemis and provided the Garou Nation with necessary prophecy. "

"while some are into the spirituality of womanhood and/or seek gender equality..."

In other words, more or less mainstream.

"Both used and subverted in Y The Last Man, which contains both the insane, violent Amazons as well as other, rational feminists (both peaceful and not). "

So not extremeists in a vacuum.

"Although her pro-feminist stance was portrayed as a good thing in the '70s, by the Justice League Europe days of the late '80s, Power Girl was portrayed as an obnoxiously outspoken feminist; this may have been a reflection of the more conservative attitudes of the Reagan years. Today, her attitudes are portrayed in a positive light again (though the fanservice has been dialed up a bit as well). "

Well, if feminism was portrayed as a good thing it's hard to see how a feminist being obnoxious is an argument against feminism, just against being obnoxious.

"There are those who would regard Serendipity (Salma Hayek) from Kevin Smith's Dogma as a Straw Feminist because of her comments about the Church and the Bible as well as her statements regarding God's gender. "

because no 'normal' feminist believes there is sexism in the church, I assume

I could keep going through the article for more examples, but my point is that the article now describes characters that are not strawman, but only mention the existence of extreme feminists, and therefore either the trope name or the article must be changed.

maybe that last post I made was tldr

The point I was making was that many of the examples on this page were not exaggeration to the extreme. Some could be considered normal for feminists. Others could be considered normal for some extreme feminists.

Saying that an 'exageration' (if these are exagerations) is always a straw man is ridiculous. It's like saying that the portrail of Marxists is a right-wing strawman, or the portrail of Islamist terrorisms is a Christian straw man.

and BTW you may be a mod but leaving my post unreplied then, when I edit the page, reversing the edit for the same reason without further discussion seems a bit impolite.

Basically what I'm thinking. Several things that bug me about this trope, its description and its examples:

1. 'A character whose feminism is drawn only for the purposes of either proving them wrong or ridiculing them.' Does a character have to be identified as a feminist in-story to qualify? Some examples feature characters who are misandrists but neither associate themselves with feminism nor particularly care about other women and women's rights.

2. What about characters who are clearly radical man-haters but potrayed as being right (or at least not particularly wrong)?

3. What about real-life extreme feminists? The Fundamentalist trope is often used as a Strawman Political too, should it be renamed into 'Straw Christian'?

4. The description in general was cut down in size to the point it may as well be the Laconic page. There should at least be some expanding about those 'exaggerated' beliefs, such as female superiority or murdering all men in existence. In fact, there used to be, before it was cut out for some reason.

Either the name should be changed to something that combines Exteme Feminist and The Misandrist (the only thing I can come up with right now is Feminazi) or many (if not most) examples should be moved to Does Not Like Men and THAT trope be reworked to include Ax-Crazy man-haters.

The trope shouldn't be called Extreme Feminist because it's specifically about INNACURATE portrayals of feminists, not actual feminists. Read up on what a strawman means, this is not a trope just about any really radical feminist or jerkass man-hater, its about when the show treats it like all feminists are like that, in order to misrepresent the argument. For example: there's a character who's horribly ugly and can't get a date and because of this she hates all men. She's called a feminist and everyone debunks feminism as if someone could only believe that rubbish if they were depressed and unloved like this, and perhaps she even 'reforms' after plastic surgery and getting a boyfriend. The same sort of character portrayed merely as a misogynist with no 'this is what feminism is like' does not belong on this page. It also doesn't apply if she exists but there are also more varied feminist characters in the show or everyone points out she's a terrible feminist who knows nothing about what she's preaching.

But I do think we should perhaps have a subsection for misrepresented feminists portrayed as right. Not sure it'd really be 'straw' since it's likely if they're portrayed as RIGHT the author actually believes feminism is like that and it's more of a wallbanger about the moral of the story being weird and creepy.

That's really just impossible. As you'll note, this page is about women who accept double standards, it's impossible to "remove judgment" from the examples because people often whine and bitch about what constitutes "a double standard" not to mention, you have people trying to argue whether something a supposed straw feminist does is considered a double standard, because people are biased when it comes to this kind of thing.

The only way to "stop" the natter fest is to just lock the page, otherwise it'll need continous moderation. It might be a good idea to delete RL examples. But then you'll get people complaining that its an attempt to discredit the (very valid) points against RL radical feminism/trying to slant the article into a biased message.

Straw Feminist is, in itself, a bad name for this trope anyways, because it assumes that this is all "Straw" in reality there are a lot more "Straw Feminists" then people like to believe/accept/recognize. YMMV on whether or not they're even a minority, considering the kind of media influence they can get.

Well, whether they are a minority or not probably depends on how you define the term. Out of people I've met who call themselves feminists, 100% fit the straw feminist definition. I know plenty of people who just want equality though, but they don't call themselves feminists. That's just an anecdote though, but about 99% of feminists in the media also fit the straw feminist trope, although that might just be media bias, I don't know. Personally, I would probably rename it to something more neutral, since "straw" really does imply that these people don't exist or are a minority, and a lot of people disagree with that, and then try to make it as neutral as possible.

This should be about the trope in fiction, not real life. And in fiction the term Straw Feminist is perfect, especially since that's how they are used.

"And in fiction the term Straw Feminist is perfect, especially since that's how they are used." Not really. Straw, as I understand it, means the author is trying to make a point by creating this straw character. As far as I can tell with this trope, it is more that this is how most people in Hollywood actually perceive feminists, whether that perception is accurate or not.

That's because the old definition was too long and unwieldy for a lot of people to properly get a grip on. The new definition is clearer. You want to start a YKTTW for Hollywood Feminist or something, go right ahead.

nm, I misunderstood something.

My teacher Mrs. Kerry Reynolds is so a Real Life example of this you have no idea

A straw man argument must, by definition, mischaracterise and condemn through that the subject of it's attacks. If there is no mischaracterisation it is not straw. If a simple, neutral (or even self) observation of some feminists would place them on this page it is not even an attack.

Feminism gains nothing by denying the existence of extreme views.

If something is that clearly Not An Example, you need feel no compunction about just deleting it.