Is use of the term 'feminazi' to describe feminists ridiculous?

[Hitchabrut]

Slightly. I am not completely angered by it, as I am am when Bush is compared to a famous Nazi.

[angus]

The term was popularized by Rush Limbaugh to breed divisiveness and polarization, which helps his ratings. The Nazis strongly opposed feminism and advocated the singular role of the woman as a "breeder" and child-care provider.

Feminists have their firmly held views but so does everyone else. This does not warrant calling them a 'nazi'. Also, I consider myself a supporter of their goals so calling feminists Nazis means calling myself a Nazi! Really ridiculous.

Feminism can and should be ridiculed at every opportunity.  and I rarely waste one.  But, turn about is fair play.  Anyone ridiculing anyone else is probably subject to some ridicule.  Still, I vote no, it's not ridiculous, since I interpret "ridiculous" as "inciting ridicule spontaneously" and it doesn't occur to me to ridicule the logical.  But it does occur to me to spontaneously ridicule feminists.  I should admit that I ridicule masculinists just as much, to be fair.  I ridicule pretty much everybody, especially those who take Rush Limbaugh too seriously.  

[Beet]

I ridicule pretty much everybody, especially those who take Rush Limbaugh too seriously. 

I only wish Limbaugh wasn't one to be taken seriously. His power may have waned of late, but he unfortunately plays a powerful role in this country's politics.

[angus]

I actually hadn't realized that Limbaugh coined, or at least popularized, the phrase.  You're probably right about it being silly, but he's a silly man.  That said, once coined, it stuck.  I use the term often on this forum.  I think it's apt.  As far as Limbaugh.  He's a joke.  It's meant to be a joke.  He's having fun and getting rich having fun.  No harm.  No foul.  I bear him no grudge.

[MaC]

in my book, some definitions:

egalitarian-one who wants equal rights for men and women

feminist-one who wants females to be advantaged over males

feminazi-feminist who hates males and wants to see them punished for the wrath they've taken on females

Those are wrong. I took a women's studies course, and it was quite clear that feminism is what you call egalitarian. Therefore, I am proud to call myself a feminist. 
Femininazi's do exist, and they're what we call "radical feminists".

ooohhhh.  I guess that makes you the authority.  Seriously though, why would it be termed "feminist", if the implication was not that females are favored over males?  I support equal rights, but I would never call myself a feminist.

That's because deep down inside you hate women

maybe I do...             ...but that's beside the point. Women get so much special treatment that guys never get, and there are so many advantages they get, they really have no right to complain about equality.
 I'm sick of those who bitch about not getting equal treatment, but they don't try for it.  Many women say they expect higher pay, but they lay back and accept lower pay, then they get frusterated at their situation when they weren't assertive enough in the first place.  

[dazzleman]

I actually hadn't realized that Limbaugh coined, or at least popularized, the phrase.  You're probably right about it being silly, but he's a silly man.  That said, once coined, it stuck.  I use the term often on this forum.  I think it's apt.  As far as Limbaugh.  He's a joke.  It's meant to be a joke.  He's having fun and getting rich having fun.  No harm.  No foul.  I bear him no grudge.

There's a certain amount of humor, and a certain amount of truth, in the use of the term "feminazi."

I think the term is appropriate because it helps to drive home the point that many feminists have become what they complained most about in men - chauvinists. 

Many men were and still are chauvinists.  In fact, I think every man is a chauvinist, to one degree or another.  And so is every woman, basically.  Except for transgendered people, it is a nearly universal feeling to take pride in one's gender, and to think it better than the alternative.  How many men want to be women, or women men?  Very, very few, and to want that is not normal.

My problem is not with chauvinism itself, within reason, but with the belief that one form of chauvinism (male) should be strongly condemned, while the other form (female) should be supported and accepted, not only by those promoting it but by its intended target (men).  I find that idea absurd.

What feminists fail to recognize or acknowledge is that there are many advantages today to being a woman.  While many of the social conventions that supposedly imprisoned women in the past have been broken down, men were no less imprisoned by certain social conventions and expectations which they may have had difficulty living up to.  But men have not been liberated from these conventions, by and large, and feminists actually seek to use these conventions to get men to accept a superior position in society for women.

I really disagree with people who say the goal of feminism is gender equality.  That may be the stated goal, in order to disarm the opposition, but the real goal is to have a preferences for women written into all our laws.

[angus]

I just want to interrupt for a moment and say to Milk and Cereal that I'm in complete agreement with your original post.  I also agree that whether you "hate women" is irrelevant to the question.  That said, I have seen no evidence that you hate women.  Or men. 

Point is, if you're an egalitarian, then there's already a long-established word for that:  egalitarian.  No need to invent some yuppie, or orwellian, newspeak word for it.  The forced and uncomfortable popularization of the term "feminist" is creepy, and probably underscores a darker agenda, as MilkandCereal suggests.  And the term they've chosen, feminism, is creepier still, as it makes clear to the wise, in no uncertain terms, what that anti-egalitarian agenda is.  But apparently this alacrity is lost on the groupthinkers.  (thus "creepy", and intentionally so.)

That said, I say the same nasty things about masculinists as well.  And that certainly shouldn't be taken as a sign that I "hate men"  After all, my father was a man, and I loved him very much.  Like my mother, he was an egalitarian and raised me that way.  Perhaps being raised to treat all humans equally is one reason that I, and presumably MilkandCereal, do not have a deeply etched urge to either overcompensate for gender-bigotry (by claiming to be "feminists") or to attain some yuppie substitute for wisdom by putting our brains on the self in favor of the less controversial groupthink.

This is an Emperor's New Clothes moment.  You are mostly in denial.  We are not.

[dazzleman]

I just want to interrupt for a moment and say to Milk and Cereal that I'm in complete agreement with your original post.  I also agree that whether you "hate women" is irrelevant to the question.  That said, I have seen no evidence that you hate women.  Or men. 

Point is, if you're an egalitarian, then there's already a long-established word for that:  egalitarian.  No need to invent some yuppie, or orwellian, newspeak word for it.  The forced and uncomfortable popularization of the term "feminist" is creepy, and probably underscores a darker agenda, as MilkandCereal suggests.  And the term they've chosen, feminism, is creepier still, as it makes clear to the wise, in no uncertain terms, what that anti-egalitarian agenda is.  But apparently this alacrity is lost on the groupthinkers.  (thus "creepy", and intentionally so.)

That said, I say the same nasty things about masculinists as well.  And that certainly shouldn't be taken as a sign that I "hate men"  After all, my father was a man, and I loved him very much.  Like my mother, he was an egalitarian and raised me that way.  Perhaps being raised to treat all humans equally is one reason that I, and presumably MilkandCereal, do not have a deeply etched urge to either overcompensate for gender-bigotry (by claiming to be "feminists") or to attain some yuppie substitute for wisdom by putting our brains on the self in favor of the less controversial groupthink.

This is an Emperor's New Clothes moment.  You are mostly in denial.  We are not.

^^^^^^^^

[??????????]

I can't believe this poll is even.  This forum is full of intolerant right-wind ideologues.  They are welcome to it.  If you think it's fair to call someone who doesn't agree with you a nazi, well, all you Republico-facists are welcome to use this space to jack off on each other untill your eyes bleed.  What a bunch of kooks, nuts and intollerant jerks you have collected.  The level of thought and discourrse here is assinine.

Go back to DU with your kind.

[The Dowager Mod]

It is a demeaning and spiteful term used by a few right wing males who need to say these things in order to make themselves feel superior in some way.

[A18]

I never really liked the term, but now that I know it pisses people off, I'll be sure to use it from time to time.

[Jake]

I never really liked the term, but now that I know it pisses people off, I'll be sure to use it from time to time.

[dazzleman]

It is a demeaning and spiteful term used by a few right wing males who need to say these things in order to make themselves feel superior in some way.

But the term "male chauvinist pig" is perfectly OK?

[The Dowager Mod]

It is a demeaning and spiteful term used by a few right wing males who need to say these things in order to make themselves feel superior in some way.

But the term "male chauvinist pig" is perfectly OK?

I said that where?

[opebo]

I do think the term sounds a bit ridiculous.  Certainly the achievements of 'feminists' in altering the legal status of women from non-voting near-slaves just 80 or so  years ago to something approximating the status of males is a positive for women.  Of course I think the purritanical anti-porn and anti-prostitution stance is intrusive and anti-freedom.

Lots of men hate women, and lots of women hate men - in fact I wouldn't be suprised if it were the majority.  Given the social dynamic between the two genders any other state of affairs would seem unlikely.  But feminists hardly have a monopoly on that.

[dazzleman]

It is a demeaning and spiteful term used by a few right wing males who need to say these things in order to make themselves feel superior in some way.

But the term "male chauvinist pig" is perfectly OK?

I said that where?

Maybe YOU didn't, but the term "feminazi" is basically payback for men being called that by radical feminists.  It's a great irony, since the radical feminists are basically female chauvinist pigs, the mirror image of the male chauvinists they so reviled.

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

[The Dowager Mod]

It is a demeaning and spiteful term used by a few right wing males who need to say these things in order to make themselves feel superior in some way.

But the term "male chauvinist pig" is perfectly OK?

I said that where?

Maybe YOU didn't, but the term "feminazi" is basically payback for men being called that by radical feminists.  It's a great irony, since the radical feminists are basically female chauvinist pigs, the mirror image of the male chauvinists they so reviled.

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

Of course i do.

[opebo]

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

I think it is a much more reasonable term than one that includes 'nazi'.  Besides, the great majority of males are chauvanists.

[dazzleman]

Maybe YOU didn't, but the term "feminazi" is basically payback for men being called that by radical feminists.  It's a great irony, since the radical feminists are basically female chauvinist pigs, the mirror image of the male chauvinists they so reviled.

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

Of course i do.

In that case, I respect your opinion.  I think that both terms are OK if used appropriately, but that they should be reserved for extremists.

[dazzleman]

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

I think it is a much more reasonable term than one that includes 'nazi'.  Besides, the great majority of males are chauvanists.

Your pandering is pathetic, particularly since admittedly your only contact with women is to pay them for sex.

I said earlier -- I think all men and women are, to one degree or another, chauvinists for their own gender.  That's normal.  The problem is when one is encouraged to be, while the other is reviled for the same thing.  That is what radical feminists seek to do.

[opebo]

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

I think it is a much more reasonable term than one that includes 'nazi'.  Besides, the great majority of males are chauvanists.

Your pandering is pathetic, particularly since admittedly your only contact with women is to pay them for sex.

Not pandering.. recognizing an obvious fact.  Open your eyes and look around you dazzleman.  There are far, far more 'chauvanists' (and it is a milder term) than there are 'feminazis'.

As for paying women for sex, I see nothing chauvanist about that.  I pay the restauranteur for my meal.. does that mean I think he is inferior to me?

[dazzleman]

Do you agree that "male chauvinist pig" is also a demeaning and spiteful term also?

I think it is a much more reasonable term than one that includes 'nazi'.  Besides, the great majority of males are chauvanists.

Your pandering is pathetic, particularly since admittedly your only contact with women is to pay them for sex.

Not pandering.. recognizing an obvious fact.  Open your eyes and look around you dazzleman.  There are far, far more 'chauvanists' (and it is a milder term) than there are 'feminazis'.

As for paying women for sex, I see nothing chauvanist about that.  I pay the restauranteur for my meal.. does that mean I think he is inferior to me?

Feminazis have more political clout than male chavinists.  There's no powerful national organization run by and for the benefit of male chauvinists.

If feminazis had their way, you would not only completely lose the ability to pay for sex, but your little head would probably become extinct.  Some of those people are way out there in their opinion, far more extreme than even the most retrograde male chauvinist.

If (and I say if) they lack numbers relative to male chauvinists, which is highly debatable, they more than make up for it in extremism.

[opebo]

Feminazis have more political clout than male chavinists.  There's no powerful national organization run by and for the benefit of male chauvinists.

That is silly.  Most Right-wing organizations - certainly the GOP - are run for and by white males.  I agree not all are chauvanists, but they will generally defend their constituency, including chauvanists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I agree the term feminazi is more extreme than the term chauvanist, as I said in my post above.  And I also agree that the feminists are a big threat to sexual freedoms - however they are considerably less of a threat than the Christians.

[nclib]

Of course I voted 'yes'.

Criticizing feminism is one thing, yet comparing them to Nazis is ridiculous considering that the ideology of feminism is diametrically opposite that of Nazism.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare anti-male feminists with sexist males. Although both are wrong, the original discrimination is less defensible. Take this situation:

Guy A punches Guy B. Guy B punches him back. Both are wrong yet Guy A is even more wrong.

[dazzleman]

Of course I voted 'yes'.

Criticizing feminism is one thing, yet comparing them to Nazis is ridiculous considering that the ideology of feminism is diametrically opposite that of Nazism.

I'm not sure it's fair to compare anti-male feminists with sexist males. Although both are wrong, the original discrimination is less defensible. Take this situation:

Guy A punches Guy B. Guy B punches him back. Both are wrong yet Guy A is even more wrong.

Extreme feminists have certain superficial similarities to Nazis, in that they seek to force discrimination on a segment of the population through undemocratic means.  Nobody means to suggest that they advocate mass death camps for men.....yet.  But their methods and overall disposition have some similarity.

I think you're wrong to think that men "punched" women first, and there they are justified in punching us back.  I think it's better to say that women had a different role in society, and were looking to change and expand that role.  I don't believe the position of women in society was like that of, say, blacks, who were systematically discriminated against.  The old social order contained rigid gender roles for men as well as women, and much of what has been called discrimination against women flowed from that.  But in certain ways, men were effectively discriminated against.  Male life has always been, and continues to be, viewed as more expendable than female life.  While women have been somewhat liberated from these traditional gender roles, men have not been, for the most part.

I just don't believe this malarky spread by the feminists that men sought to actively discriminate against women out of malice.  Feminists wanted to change the role of women in society and have done so.  They should let go of some of their anger.