To Russ Lindquist:
Way back, you sent me a message with a link to a video you'd done on why feminism isn't hate. The video is over 2 hours long. I hesitate to think that's a rebuttal. That's more like attrition. More about that in a minute.
You've since made at least one video (perhaps more, since the one a friend just sent me was "round 6"). In it, you claim you've won the debate, reasoning that since I hadn't responded to any of your videos, it's obviously because I "can't" refute any of your points. Well, regarding your follow up videos, I really can't refute points I'm not made aware of, can I?
A handful of friends of mine did watch that first video--remember, the only video of yours on this topic that I was even aware of until just a few days ago. They mentioned a few of the points you make in it (all of which I've rebutted before, in blog posts or other videos, or in general discussions online), but the general consensus among them was that it was not worth the time required for me to watch it. Their characterization of it was that it was rambling, unorganized, meandering and largely irrelevant to the topic. Now, I'm a busy person. I have three kids, a job, two other businesses I run. Even though you claim in your video that I'm making a living from Men's Rights stuff, I'm really not. I have other things on the go, and other responsibilities. So I'm not going to devote any time watching to that first video, and I'm going to address specifically some of the things you said in this latest one.
Now, you're welcome to think whatever you want of me for not watching your first video, and you're welcome to feel as dismissed and insulted as you like about it. All I can say is that I get regular complaints about the length of my videos, but one thing I do to alleviate that problem is that I almost always script them. Which is, oddly enough, the part you left out of your criticism--you went so far as to cut a clip of me off mid-sentence to do it--to make my decision to not watch or address your video seem arbitrary or cowardly rather than informed, and my criticism of your video's length seem unfair rather than justifiable.
As an aside, this video is indeed scripted.
Also, what you characterized as me "getting a pass because I'm a woman", in other words, that I have yet to prove the resolution, but am seen to be winning (or a shoo-in) by viewers, is premature at best. Your characterization of me as somehow feeling like I've proved the resolution, and that's both misinformed and uncharitable. I wouldn't call it an ad hominem--I'd call it jumping the gun, going off half-cocked, doing a victory dance when the ball's still at the five yard line.
The truth is, scripting, shooting and editing these videos takes a lot of my time. The research takes time, and I do more edits and rewrites on these things than I ever did in my published fiction. I've been working on this particular script since Wednesday, and it's now the following Monday. "Two hours I spend!" you say, "and all I've gotten is ten seconds back from her!" I've spent over 8 hours on this response alone, probably closer to twelve, and I haven't even shot it yet. I spent at least 6 hours on each of my responses to Danielle (which is why I wasn't sure I was going to address any of her other specific points before concluding). I'm sorry you all had to wait, as I've built my case, but it's just the way it is.
And I found it really bizarre that you repeatedly state that my that my video responses to Danielle were irrelevant to the question. The purpose of me addressing the points I addressed in Danielle's video--building a case. Because feminism describes the system--you know The Patriarchy--both historically and presently, as being based on the subjugation and oppression of women as a class, and as inherently misogynistic. If that's not how the system operated or why it operated the way it did, if women's issues were commonly addressed and women's problems alleviated by that system once women could agree on them and what solutions they wanted, and once that became possible, then it's never been a system based on the oppression and subjugation of women, has it?
And then you go on to characterize my entire body of work as that of a "false mommy idol", and mock the people who follow me. You opine on this at some length. That's awesome.
And given that, I find it curious that you took such a huge issue with the tone I used in my video responses to Danielle Paradis. As in, I sounded condescending and dismissive, which I'm sure I did, because I was. You then appeal to consequences, warning me that Danielle is a moderate, but being so poorly treated by someone like me might compel her to become radicalized.
This seems absurd on its face. If she's a moderate, she's one who belongs to feminist groups that have organized efforts to deface and tear down other groups' posters to keep opposing viewpoints from being seen or heard, and is also the kind of moderate feminist who subscribes to the Femitheist's channel. From that (among other things), I'm almost positive her mind is closed to the ideas I presented in my responses to her as the mind of a creationist is to any argument in favor of evolution.
Given that, my strategy was not to convince Danielle Paradis of anything, especially not to rethink her belief system, but to demonstrate to as many people as possible how simplistic, childish and unsupportable her belief system is.
And what I really find curious is that you took issue with me calling her typical. Because she is typical. She even called herself typical, in so many words, in the sense that she--like pretty much every other feminist she's aware of--believes that women have historically had the short end of the stick.
More than that, explain why it should matter to me or to anyone if my tone sends her stomping off to get herself radicalized? In my view, radical and mainstream feminists differ only in their degree of commitment to acting on their shared belief system, and their ability to be identified by the public as people not to be trusted. It's the belief system and its theoretical model I'm interested in dismantling, I'm not that interested in redeeming individual feminists.
That said, you really don't seem to have a lot of respect for Danielle, if you think she's incapable of prioritizing arguments and reason over delivery. You seem to think that she can't separate herself from her belief system in such a way as to differentiate an attack on feminist theory, or on her beliefs, or her arguments, from an attack on her as a person. She's not a defenceless child, Russ. And you're not a hero for treating her that way, or for suggesting that she's so emotionally frail she's likely suffering from stockholm syndrome from a barrage of nasty, trolling comments that she could have easily ignored.
I mean, you even said that what made you want to join her team was that I was mean to her. Not that she was right. Not that what she said was valid. But that she was "respectful" and I was "mean".
Frankly, if you respected her, and you were of the view that she and other feminists were misinformed, misguided or the innocent victims of other people's lies, as you've suggested, repeatedly, you'd have corrected her, rather than defended her. Allowing someone to labor under a misconception because you want to spare their feelings is a dishonor you commit upon them. All you seem to be interested in doing, however, is indulging her ignorance.
You do seem to have a little more respect for me. You're not interested in protecting me from perceived insults--you're actually one of the people flinging them. Thank you for that, sincerely, because at least I know you're not humoring me, or indulging me, or acting out of some assumption that as a woman, I can't handle a little meanness.
The tone argument holds no water with me, nor does any reference by you or anyone to what people say in my comment section. What is below the line is NOT my responsibility. What the individuals who make up my subscribers and viewers do with their own fingers and their own keyboards elsewhere is also NOT my responsibility. I have a pretty strong non-censorship policy at my channel and blog, one that radical feminists like NocturnusLibertus (another buddy of Danielle's) seem happy to take full advantage of. I get regular messages from my subscribers to ban people like them, and I refuse to do it, even when they're being abusive.
Now, are you going to imply that it's Danielle responsible, what her friends, viewers and subscribers say on my channel and elsewhere? More than that, are any of the people crapping on each other in the comments interfering with anyone else's ability to view the videos in question, the way a disruptive audience at a live debate would? Why are viewer comments even a thing to be addressed in this context?
On this same topic, was Danielle actually "respectful" in her response?
Her tone was, and she didn't use any slurs or bad language. Her points, however, were glib, hackneyed and lacked any real analysis or investigation--just statements to be taken at face value. And then there's the matter of her clear statement that her video should not be viewed as "opening arguments", but as the entirety of her rebuttal, and all she had to say on the matter. A drive-by, as it were. A way of dismissing off-hand Eric's proposition while absolving herself of any duty to empirically or logically back up her own.
That's not "respectful", Russ. That's actually much more dismissive than I've been toward her, and it shows a lack of regard for the debate question, her opponents and the audience. In light of that, her pleasant tone was quite the manipulation. And you fell for it, didn't you? You're here, fighting her battle for her, and taking any downvotes and criticism of her, on her behalf. For a guy who could write the song, "Let her die", you sure seem willing to jump in front of a bullet for a cute girl with a soft, pleasant voice and hurt feelings.
Moving along: you criticize me for making two longish videos that addressed "nothing to do with the resolution that feminism is hate". But here's the thing. Danielle made several points in her video as, I'm guessing, evidence that feminism is NOT hate (which they really weren't evidence of anything). My FIRST job as a debater was to take those points and demonstrate their lack of validity. Demonstrate that they can't be used to prove or refute anything because they're either missing half the picture, or essentially bunk. As an example: say, a creationist claims that the fact that DNA is made out of cotton candy is obvious proof that God created the universe and all life within it. A debate opponent can't just let the "fact" that DNA is made of cotton candy stand--he got to spend some time disproving the assertion upon which the creationist's argument rests. And the more deeply entrenched that creationist's argument is in the public zeitgeist, the harder the opponent has to work to dismantle it.
See how that works? She says, or implies, that Feminism is not hate because of A, B and C. And then I come in and say, but feminism's analysis of A, B, and C are biased at best, completely invalid at worst, therefore you can't use A, B and C as proof of anything. Do you expect someone in a debate to allow invalid arguments made by an opponent to stand as fact? Really? My refutations of points SHE made are "red herrings"? If that's the case, her entire video was one big red herring.
You seem to be really agitated about it, actually going so far as to intersperse clips of my refutations of specific arguments she made, with the text "therefore feminism is hate"? as if that's ANYTHING like what I was saying. David Futrelle, the king of quote-mining and putting words in people's mouths, would be awfully proud.
And then you go on to do the exact same thing you accused me of doing, but with less excuse, since you're not even rebutting an argument I made. Because the question was not the one you saw fit to repeatedly address in your latest video, and which a friend of mine mentioned was a recurring theme in your first: "Are feminists necessarily hateful?"
You and I and everybody else on the planet is going to know, the answer to that is "no", or at least, "no more hateful than anyone else". But by raising the issue that many feminists are likely misguided or misinformed, and therefore not acting out of hate but out of ignorance, you are simultaneously dodging the REAL question, and essentially necessitating I address the sticky business of exactly what feminism is.
Is feminism a belief system, or is it simply a label? Is it a set of theories, or is it a group of individuals? Is it a pursuit of women's rights, or is it a worldview?
One commenter on this last video of yours suggested that the best way to refute my argument would be to convince people that feminism is a movement, rather than an ideology. He said that if one could define feminism as "the movement for the rights of women" rather than as the ideology associated with it, that would be proof that feminism isn't hate. I suppose because not all feminists hate men.
Unfortunately again, the question was not, "are feminists hateful?" nor was it, "Is the feminist movement hate?" nor was it, "Is advocating for women's rights hate?" nor was it, "Has feminism done anything not hateful?" nor was it even "Are hateful feminists misguided in their hate?"
The question was, "Is feminISM hate?"
According to dictionary.com, an ism is a distinctive practice, system or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement. Synonyms include "doctrine" and "theory". The Merriam Webster dictionary defines ism in two ways: 1) a distinctive doctrine, cause or theory; and 2) an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief.
OMGoodness! Feminism fits all of those!
Unfortunately for me, "cause" and "practice" are not ideologies, theories or belief systems.
Fortunately for me, however, neither of those definitions is relevant in the case of defining feminism, or differentiating it from non-feminism.
Because feminism is NOT the only platform from which to practice advocacy in the cause of the rights of women--there are several other groups and individuals who lobby on behalf of women's rights.
Phyllis Schlafly and her allies, for instance, were instrumental in blocking the ERA, arguing that the ERA would give women no rights they didn't already have, but would take away rights, exemptions and privileges they enjoyed as women. It would have, in fact, removed rights women had, and conservative women's success in blocking the ERA preserved those rights.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost positive that Phyllis Schlafly and her buddies would never be described as feminist, even though they did as much to protect women's rights as any feminist ever has.
Conversely, it's altogether possible to describe feminists' fairly consistent (at least when people are looking) support for the ERA as advocating an erosion of the rights of women--that is, they are supporting an amendment that would remove rights women currently have, that would make VAWA, and women-only scholarships and affirmative action unconstitutional. So clearly, they're not simply the movement "for the rights" of women.
Moreover, MRAs also fight for women's rights--most commonly women's right to be fully accountable and responsible for their actions and decisions, women's right to be treated as capable of self-sufficiency, their right to be subject to the same legal status as men, and their right to be not be subject to discrimination under the law.
And again, I'm almost positive the MRM is not the same thing as feminism.
Hell, we can't even define feminism as the movement for equal rights for women, since they have a consistent record, in practice if not in rhetoric, of protecting the rights women enjoy that men don't, and interfering with efforts toward equalizing the treatment of men and women under the law.
So what does that leave us with, if not the ideology?
It leaves us with the absurd necessity of considering feminism a label attributable to Phyllis Schlafly since she advocates for women's rights, and anti-feminism a label attributable to the membership of NOW who (claim at least outwardly that they) advocate the removal of rights women currently have. It leaves us with the bizarre necessity of saying Paul Elam is a "better feminist" than the feminists who wrote VAWA, because he advocates equal treatment of men and women under the law.
And it leaves us with the strange conundrum that MRAs are the only "true feminists", as they advocate for full equality of rights between men and women, while feminists themselves focus most of their real-world activism on protecting the rights women have that men don't, and in maintaining a system that treats men and women unequally socially, politically and legally.
Feminism is not a practice. It's not a cause. It's not an idea. It's not a group of individuals who share an idea in common. It's not a handful of ideas or concerns or causes.
It's an ideology, a system of beliefs, a set of theories that includes a model of what society looks like, how it operates, why it operates the way it does, and how men and women coexist within that model. This set of theories is feminism.
By keeping the focus not on feminISM but on individual feminISTS, you're not just deflecting, you're rendering the concept of feminism so murky, it can't even be defined. Even if feminism itself can be defined based on a shared ideology, by framing it in the context of individuals rather than the collective, or the core beliefs, if even one feminist disagrees with one of the primary and widely accepted tenets of feminist ideology, feminism becomes purely ephemeral and unassailable--attacking it becomes, as someone on reddit once observed, like swordfighting a fart.
I'm not interested in swordfighting your fart, Russ. I'm going to assert that feminism is an ideology, based on a set of theories: its foundation being the unifying (false) paradigm of The Patriarchy, and whose theoretical offshoots include Male Privilege, Female Oppression, Patriarchal Domestic Terrorism (otherwise known as the Duluth Model) and Rape Culture.
It really doesn't matter what any individual calls themselves--I can call myself a Christian and believe in Odin, and I can call myself a Buddhist and take every word of the Bible as gospel. This does not mean that Christianity is a set of beliefs built around the Norse gods, any more than Buddhism is based on the the New Testament. And while different sects of Christianity might differ on certain aspects of faith, a Catholic is just as much a Christian as a Baptist or a Lutheran, because they subscribe to the core tenets of the ideology.
Feminists will also subscribe to the core tenets of their ideology, which I named above. If they don't, then they're not the people we're discussing in this debate.
Feminism is an ISM. And its core tenets are available for pretty much anyone to learn.
All that aside--you know, the question of defining feminism, clarifying and solidifying the debate question, your objections to my tone, the issue of your fallacious appeal to consequences, you have, in your comment section, placed me in something of a bind.
Any debate with YOU on this topic is going to be muddied by your assertion that, what the Nazis did to the Jews and what they believed about the Jews, could not be necessarily used to prove that nazism is hate.
I assume you would consider that line of reasoning to be valid when applied to feminism, and I'm absolutely prepared to grant you that point.
However, I would argue that regardless of how justified a person might believe something like genocide to be, hate is a necessary ingredient to convince psychologically functional human beings to exterminate an entire population of other human beings. One must not only see the target group as subhuman, one must see them as subhuman and a threat deserving of death. Hate, justified or misguided, is kind of a requisite.
A Nazi or a Hutu or an Islamic Jihadist doesn't kill Jews or Tutsis or westerners because of policy. They do it because they are driven by psychological conditioning to hate the target group. They have to hate, or be convinced to hate, if they're not going to be overburdened with guilt and trauma by their actions. This is why so much of the rhetoric preceding genocides is designed to dehumanize and vilify the target group--they're scum, they're vermin, they're monsters, they're beasts, they're demons, they're dogs, they're rats, they're a disease. Never does or lambs or kittens, mind you--always something both subhuman, and a threat to humans.
Whether that hate is "righteous" in their minds, based on information they've been exposed to information that's been concealed from them, or whether it's purely rational, a psychologically functional human being does not kill masses and masses of other human beings because it seems like a good idea, or because someone tells them to, or because it will benefit them a little bit, or even because they see the other as inferior. They do it because they've been conditioned to hate the target group, and that hate is based on a combination of the perceived threat posed by the target group, and the learned view that the target group are subhuman.
And here, finally, I'm going to address the debate question: Is feminism hate?
And to do that, I'm going to ask that age-old question: WWHD: "What Would Hitler Do?" Because there IS a way to define Nazism as hate--if you can prove that the set of beliefs and ideas, and the antipathy and acts it engenders, persist in the face of solid contrary evidence.
Hell, one could even argue that it is not UNTIL solid contrary evidence is presented, considered and discarded in favor of the now-debunked belief system, that it even becomes primarily an ideology based on hate.
Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: It is a common belief that black women often murder, cook and eat children. Black men assist or enable their women in this practice. It's an abomination. It's inhuman. And a danger to everyone around them. Research tells us this is not a practice engaged in by ANY other group of humans. It feels right to hate black people for engaging in such barbary, and to consider them less than human because of it. It's only justifiable to discriminate against them, legally and socially, to preemptively attack them for their historical and future atrocities, and to protect ourselves at any expense, and our children, from this monstrous practice that is unique to black people.
And then we're presented with evidence. Irrefutable evidence. Empirically sound evidence. And that evidence shows either that A) all people of all ethnicities engage in this practice to a similar degree, or that B) black people do not commonly engage in this practice at all, and that the data behind the misconception was biased, falsified or methodologically unsound. Either way, blackness and baby-eating are not connected in any way.
What Would Hitler Do? I don't know.
What I do know is that when feminists, influential or otherwise, are presented with solid evidence demonstrating that domestic violence is NOT, in fact, a sexually directional behavior, that it is NOT consistent with their unifying theory of The Patriarchy, that women are actually MORE likely to be violent toward their partners than men, that men and women abuse their partners for the exact same reasons, that women are MORE likely, in fact, to engage in coercive control of a partner, that women are NOT much more likely to be injured or killed by a partner, that mothers are MORE likely than fathers to abuse children, that unilateral violence is 50% MORE likely to be female-perpetrated than male...
Well, what those with any power--those most invested in the ideology--did, in response to that solid, contrary evidence was to engage in boycotts, censorship, intimidation, terrorism, death threats, blacklisting, information suppression, denial, dismissal, shaming, false accusations, and cover-ups. And the ones who didn't, who said, "hey, wait a minute. We need to look into this," they were excommunicated.
Case 1) In California, feminist-inspired domestic violence mandatory arrest policies enacted in the 1980s led to a 37% increase in arrests of men and a 446% increase in arrests of women. That's some pretty solid evidence right there, especially when taken in conjunction with the then-multiple studies on DV that showed gender symmetry. Within a few years, however, feminist legal experts had written and successfully implemented predominant aggressor policies which prioritized relative height, weight, strength, AND patriarchal/feminist models of domestic violence (Duluth again), over inconvenient matters such as "who is the abusive party?" They essentially adjusted policy to make outcomes conform to their theory, rather than adjusting their theory to conform to reality. And conform the outcomes did--arrest rates returned to normal: at least 85% male, at least 1/3 of which would have been victims.
Case 2) In Ontario, a recently penned feminist report on domestic violence, cited data from Statistics Canada. In her report, the author transformed the data from the StatsCan report to reflect feminist ideology. She reported that about 1.2 million Canadian women had been abused by their partners in the past 5 years, even though the StatsCan report clearly indicates that that 1.2 million refers to "Canadians" including 601k women and 585k men. Not only are this feminist grad student and her feminist supervising professor essentially doubling the number of female victims, they're erasing male ones--portraying domestic violence as sexually directional when it's anything but.
Ignorance is no excuse in either of these examples. These feminists weren't ignorant of the facts--they wanted to keep the public ignorant of them. It's no excuse for the treatment of Erin Pizzey by the feminist establishment in the UK, who were so angered and threatened by her assertion that women are as violent as men in their relationships that they subjected her to a campaign of bomb threats, death threats to her, her children and her grandchildren, and finally killed her family dog when they couldn't get to her. It's no excuse for taking data from tables and not just ignoring the actual numbers, but lying about them, so you can inflate the number of female victims and cast all the perpetrators as male.
Why would feminists do this? And keep in mind, it's not like they chose to merely persist in their belief system even when evidence proved it wasn't consistent with reality, they didn't just ignore the evidence and go on their merry way. They actively suppressed the evidence, misrepresented the evidence, attempted to keep that evidence from public and government scrutiny, threatened and blacklisted researchers to prevent them from finding more evidence, and the moment that evidence began being reflected in arrest rates, they actually changed legal procedures so that arrest rates would conform to their theory.
And while I would agree that lots of people cling to indefensible but dearly-held theories despite mountains of contrary evidence, I think it behooves us to examine what specific elements of their theory it was that they went to such arguably criminal lengths to protect from scrutiny or challenge:
Here's what they theorize: Domestic violence is a microcosmic reflection of a system which is based on female subordination and male dominance. Violence, oppression, coercion, domination and abuse are integral aspects of masculinity, and behaviors not just normalized and reinforced by The Patriarchy, but intrinsic to it.
The negative qualities that make people beat up their partners are not human qualities, they are masculine qualities, and they are an integral part of how masculinity and femininity interact under The Patriarchy, a system where men have always held power.
So as you can see, the element of feminist theory feminists were driven to death threats, blacklisting and violence to preserve, was the very element that makes hating men morally justifiable.
Robin Morgan said it herself: Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act--the oppressed have a right to class hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
And if men aren't that way--you know, aren't violent, oppressive, coercive, dominating and abusive toward women, at least no more so than women are toward men--then all of a sudden it's no longer justifiable to hate men, is it? Feminists have spent almost 40 years concealing evidence that contradicts the specific misconceptions that give women the right, as a class, to hate men, as a class. They've perpetuated stereotypes that violence, aggression, and abuse--especially of women--are "normal" male behaviors, encouraged and abetted by a culture that is shaped by male-dominance, in the face of evidence that men are no more shitty in their behavior toward women than women are in their behavior toward men.
Why would they do that, if they didn't want people to hate men? Or if their hatred of men didn't inform their attachment to the aspects of their theories that expressly justify it? Why is it that the facets of their theory that directly connect the most harmful behaviors of humans to maleness and maleness alone, why is it those are the very ones they're prepared to engage in terrorism to preserve?
Asking which came first, the theory or the hate, is kind of irrelevant. It was the misandry-engendering parts of the theory feminists were willing to maintain, by threatening and blacklisting researchers, and then rewriting law and policy such that actual victims of domestic violence would be sent to prison if they're male, innocent men would be stripped of their homes and children, and violent female perpetrators would walk--with full custody of their kids, no less. Those facets of the theory are the most adamantly defended by those in control of the narrative.
How about another hypothetical scenario:
Hispanics are known to commonly commit serious assault, especially sexual assault. In fact, 99% of the rapes of all women and 99% of the sexual assaults on all men, are known to be committed by hispanics. Though efforts have been made to integrate hispanics into the culture, to socialize them away from this violent behavior and instil in them the values important to whites, blacks and asians--most notably an ethic of empathy--the problem isn't lessening. In fact, more people than ever are victims of hispanic sexual violence--in the 1970s, 1 in 8 people were victims of hispanic sexual violence, but now the number is 1 in 3. This must be a problem endemic to hispanic culture or genetics. It's either inherent or culturally intractable. They're monsters, when you think of it--violent, cruel and sociopathic, begetting more violent, cruel sociopathy with each generation. It's therefore entirely justifiable to mete out harsher penalties when they commit sexual violence, to arrest them anytime a non-hispanic has ever felt threatened by them, to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases involving hispanics, and even to propose to confine them to certain areas after 9 at night.
And then we're presented with contrary evidence. Empirically sound contrary evidence. That evidence demonstrates that non-hispanics are equally likely to engage in sexual aggression--it's just that the victims of non-hispanics don't report it as often. Hispanics themselves are least likely to report being victimized. We're actually shown that it is non-hispanics who are most likely to self-report having used physical force, threats, intoxication or coercion to get sex from an unwilling partner. The evidence shows that victimization and perpetration rates are virtually identical among ethnic groups--it's only how we view those assaults that differs, depending on who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.
What would Hitler do? I don't know.
What do feminists do? They continue to perpetuate the lie that sexual aggression is a masculine behavior--even though women are more likely to report engaging in it. They claim that the number of male victims is tiny, and they cite research that describes forced sex perpetrated on a woman as rape and forced sex perpetrated on a man as not rape, to "prove" it. They ignore the findings that a large percentage of women have reported having forced a man into sex, while a smaller percentage of men report they've repeatedly forced a woman into sex--which actually demonstrates that rape is more common a behavior in women, not men.
They continue to frame rape culture as a social attitude that normalizes sexual violence by men against women, even though the justice system has bent over backwards to make it easier for women to report rape and easier to convict male rapists, even though black men hung like the song said, "strange fruit" from trees in the deep south based on nothing more than a woman's pointed finger, and even though the first response of society to a man's complaint that he's been forced into sex by a woman is, "was she hot?" They blame the rape of women on Patriarchal norms, masculinity and male dominance, even though it was a male-dominated system that enacted marital rape laws to protect only women from sexually aggressive husbands, while the exact same system will force a man to pay punitive damages to his ex-wife for not putting out enough for her liking, and will consider him withholding sex from her a form of domestic violence.
And they say batshit insane things like this, which I'm quoting from a recent article on Feministing:
Rape is absolutely a gendered crime, but the act of rape itself doesn’t necessarily follow those rules.
We need to be able to hold an understanding of rape as a genderless act at the same time that we recognize it as embedded in a gendered culture of violence. No one said feminism was easy.
What exactly is she saying here? Well, she's saying that even though rape is not gendered, it's intrinsic to masculinity. It is, as Brownmiller once said, the means by which all men control all women. It's not a pathology--it's a Patriarchal tool in all men's hands, a tool men have used since the beginning of humanity to terrorize women into remaining subjugated.
So again, what are the exact aspects of feminist theory that feminists are so desperate to protect by attempting to emulsify the oil of narrative and the water of empirical reality? To hold two completely contradictory ideas in their heads at once, and then bemoan that "no one said feminism was easy"? What motivates them to continue to tie a sexual behavior more common among WOMEN, and more likely to be normalized and endorsed by the culture when women are the aggressors, with masculinity?
Surprise! It's the part that, when attributed to masculinity, makes men hate-worthy. It's the part that makes people see maleness as bad, as evil, as deserving of hate and prejudice.
And you know, as much as feminists lie through their teeth about things like the pay gap and old boys' clubs and sexism in employment and education, I haven't EVER heard of anyone sending death threats to a researcher, or screaming, "YOU ARE FUCKING SCUM!!!!" into the face of someone interested in hearing another point of view, over the pay gap or subtle employment sexism.
The ONLY aspects of feminist theory--you know, the theory that IS feminISM--that feminists have engaged in violence, death and bomb threats, intimidation and false accusations to preserve are the aspects of feminist theory that cast men as uniquely subhuman monsters, and therefore worthy of hate.
Was feminism borne of the hatred of men, or was the hatred of men merely a natural consequence of the theories central to feminism? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The question is immaterial. Whether the theories were based in some women's hate of men, or whether they were based on ignorance and only taught women to perpetuate hateful beliefs about men, the relevant question is: What parts of feminist theory do feminist theorists most vehemently, violently shield from any challenge, doubt or scrutiny? What parts do feminists cling to even when they're proved wrong by sound evidence?
The parts that cast masculinity as a pathological victimization of women. The parts that give us all moral permission to hate men and see them as a threat. The parts that, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, cast women as a monolithic victim class and men as a monolithic perpetrator class, that cast women as universally humane and men as universally subhuman.
If the tenets of feminist theory that feminists defend most adamantly--with sociopathic or criminal behavior, no less--are the very tenets that collectively portray men as inhuman monsters and women, collectively, as their victims, the parts that naturally lead society to hate men for the horrible things they, and only they, are prone to do... then yes, I'd say feminism is hate. Because it's the aspects of the theory that lead people to hate men that feminists seem most interested in protecting.
And you might think those aspects are "radical", and I suppose you're right. "Radical" means "pertaining to the root". It does not describe fringe beliefs, it describes core, fundamental ones. Basic ones. Ones that are foundational to an ideology. The equivalent of, "was Christ the son of god, and did he die for our sins?" It's the radical feminists who are "doing it right". The moderates and coffee shop feminists are nothing more than poseurs and pick-and-choosers--Christmas Christians who engage in premarital sex and swipe office supplies from work, but rationalize it away because they like the idea of a Jesus that loves them no matter what.
And it doesn't matter whether some feminists are acting or believing out of ignorance. The ideology, and those who concocted, perpetuate and control it are not.
Individual feminists might not be primarily motivated by a hatred of men, but feminism is, absolutely, hate. It encourages hate, gives people moral permission to hate, condones and endorses that hate, and incites individuals and governments to act on that hate--and it is the specific elements of feminist theory with the least validity and empirical support, and which serve these very purposes, which are the ones most closely nurtured and guarded by feminists invested in them, and most zealously shielded from scrutiny, refutation or challenge. The ideology, and those in control of the narrative, are at their most vehement when it comes to maintaining feminism's most hateful premises.
It might not be hate if it was supported by valid, empirical evidence, or if it adjusted its tenets in the face of contrary evidence. It would just be reality.
The way to prove that an ideology IS based on hate is to demonstrate that 1) it is false, 2) its falsities engender and promote unjustifiable hate, and 3) those falsities are the most adamantly defended and preserved by its followers.
All the elements of feminist ideology that are most likely to justify and encourage the hate of men rest on lies, half-truths, and censorship of opposing viewpoints and evidence, through a history of boycotts, intimidation and even terrorism. So yes, I'm prepared to say that the ideology of feminism is one of hate. As you quoted in your video, "By their fruits, you shall know the tree."
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Have a nice day.