Looking for advice. Was I assaulted?

@nononono,

Quote:

why do you constantly defend feminism?

I'm not defending feminism as much as I'm attacking your over-generalized, inaccurate, negative stereotyping of a highly diverse philosophical and social movement, and political advocacy group.

Quote:

This is what feminism is. It's a hate based superiority ideology that really is only different from the KKK in that feminist aren't selective about which men they hate. They hate all men equally.

No, that is your idiosyncratic, distorted, and inaccurate, view of feminism, and one that does not accurately describe either the attitudes or beliefs of most academic/philosophical, or social activist feminists, on either a historical or current basis. You cannot shoehorn the extremely diverse, and often conflicting, views, and issues, encompassed within feminism thought into a one size fits all ideology.

I've also opposed similar over-generalized negative stereotyping of racial and religious groups, including those groups I don't belong to.

Quote:

according to the most recent survey 72% of people do not identify as feminists. (38% of women and only 18% of men). That's FAR less than "most men" or even most women! So no firefly, in fact most men AND women reject feminism, and that's a fact

I think that's because most men and women don't identify with a stereotype of feminism, such as the one you, and the mens activists Web sites, choose to promote and portray, as being essentially man-hating or committed to destroying and marginalizing men.

And, despite your paranoid perception that "feminists" are an omnipotent highly organized huge force that's controlling everything from the government, to all educational institutions, to the medical professional, etc., all to the detriment of boys and men, a fantasized absurd degree of power that really doesn't jive with the statistic that 72% of people don't even identify as feminists, most people aren't even educated about what it means to be a feminist these days. And that's really the point made in that Cosmopolitan article you linked to--an article you either didn't read or one you failed to understand. As the author of that article points out, "The problem, then, seems to be the word itself, and not what it stands for."

Quote:

Why Don't More People Call Themselves Feminists?
It's 2014, and lots of women (and men) are still wary of embracing the term.
Jul 9, 2014
by Jill Filipovic

In my first day of Intro to Women's Studies at NYU, the professor passed out a survey to get a sense of where students were in their knowledge of women's history. One of the first questions: "Do you identify as a feminist?"

I was 18 and only in this class because I registered late and there were few other options available; my plan was to transfer after a week or so. I stared at the blank line next to the question. I believed in equal rights, sure, but a feminist? The term seemed aggressive, dated, intimidating.

"I don't know," I wrote.

That hesitation to own the term is a common reaction: In a 2013 Economist/YouGov poll, 72 percent of respondents said that, no, they did
not consider themselves feminists. More women than men – 38 percent versus 18 percent – identified as feminist, but in neither group did a majority use the label.

Celebrities also routinely reject the term: Taylor Swift isn't a feminist because she doesn't "think about things as guys versus girls"; Lady Gaga isn't one because she "loves men"; Sarah Jessica Parker is a "humanist"; Carrie Underwood thinks the word "can come off as a negative connotation"; Shailene Woodley also "loves men" and believes in "sisterhood more than feminism." On one hand, it's unclear why we care if celebrities are feminists or not, and in a country where many people harbor negative stereotypes about feminism, it may be a smarter career move for famous women — and it's almost always women who are being asked the question — to remain palatable by embracing a "girl power" ethos while rebuffing the word for it. On the other hand, every time a celebrity denies being a feminist or issues a qualifier — like Katy Perry's "I'm not a feminist, but I do believe in the strength of women" — it reinforces the myth that feminism is about hating men or that it's simply unattractive or uncool.

Reluctance to use the F-word may be more about education and information than the word itself. When respondents to the 2013 poll were given the dictionary definition of feminist — "someone who believes in the social, political and economic equality of the sexes" — 57 percent of respondents, including 67 percent of women and 47 percent of men, agreed that, yes, they were feminists.

Education worked for me too. I stayed in my women's studies class until the end of the semester, and by then, not only had "feminist" lost its fear factor, but it felt tremendously disrespectful not to own a word that represented generations of struggle to set women on the path to equality. We know the usual markers of feminist success but not always the long haul that led to them: Women secured the right to vote, but it took nearly 100 years of campaigning; women won court cases for the right to use contraception and terminate pregnancies, but only after sustained campaigns to criminalize both of those practices landed health advocates in jail; Hillary Clinton might just be the first female president of the United States, but Victoria Woodhull was the first to run nearly a century and a half ago; today, domestic violence is illegal and it's no big deal for a woman to have her own credit card or bank account, but just a few decades ago, beating your wife wasn't treated as a criminal offense and a woman couldn't open a bank account without her husband's permission.

Many other American women also come to feminism through higher education, with more than half of college-educated women identifying as feminists. And women who came of age during the second-wave feminist movement of the '60s and '70s are also more likely than the average American to use the term to describe themselves.

The problem, then, seems to be the word itself, and not what it stands for. When people learn what feminism actually means either through education or by simply hearing a definition of the term, they're more likely to adopt it. But who can blame folks for initially balking? Right-wing radio hosts have built entire careers on branding feminist-minded women "feminazis," and every inch toward equality has seen a foot of backlash, often in the form of stereotyping feminists as unattractive man-haters. American women are strongly socialized to be people-pleasers, to put work into being pretty, to be nice and likable and, especially, appealing to men. The many traditionalists who oppose feminist values, including equality in the home and at work, have been particularly savvy in exploiting that desire to be attractive and agreeable by casting feminists as the opposite.

There are also women who reject the term "feminist" because they feel the term rejects them. While the word "feminist" purports to represent women's interests, various factions of the feminist movement have at times marginalized or outright attacked particular groups. Some suffragists, for example, opposed racial equality laws; feminist anti-lynching journalist Ida B. Wells not only challenged their stance but also brought lynching and the sexual violence of white men against black women into the national conversation. The second-wave feminists have been sharply criticized for prioritizing the interests of white, middle class women; writer Alice Walker coined the term "womanism" as a feminist theory intended to represent the ways in which feminists of color live in the intersections of sexism and racism. In 1969, National Organization of Women president Betty Friedan lamented the "lavender menace" of lesbians infiltrating the women's movement and marginalizing it from the mainstream political discourse; queer women and their allies split off to agitate for women's rights regardless of sexual orientation. And many radical feminists continue to embrace an idea of "women-born-women" to differentiate themselves from transgender women, who they believe should be excluded from female-only spaces. Some women, then, cast the term "feminist" aside not out of ignorance, but out of experience.

Feminist identity seems to be changing, though, and the Internet may get the credit. Women between the ages of 18 and 29 are the group most likely to self-identify as feminists — they're also the group that came of age with Internet access. Online spaces offer an endless stream of information, with ideas both good and bad disseminated widely. It's nearly impossible to read about politics, women's issues, and even fashion online today and not be more than a click or two away from unabashed feminist thought. While second-wave feminists gathered in living rooms for "consciousness-raising" sessions wherein they discussed the personal ways sexism manifested in their lives, from husbands who did little housework to surviving intimate partner violence, women today have Twitter, feminist blogs, Tumblr, and website comment sections in which to trade stories and discuss the personal and political issues that matter in their lives. That contributes to a heightened awareness not only of what feminism is, but how womanhood and sexism are experienced differently by women of different backgrounds — instead of talking to your neighbors, Internet access means you might be talking to a woman on the other side of the country or halfway around the world. Those connections, and the understanding they foster, mean feminism snakes out across the web, popping up even in unexpected places — food blogs, fashion websites, porn. And it makes online feminism a force for powerful activism. When the Susan G. Komen Foundation pulled funding for breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood, for example, the online outrage meant the decision was quickly reversed. Feminist blogs have successfully gotten companies to pull sexist clothing items off the shelves. Feminist hashtags on Twitter now shape media coverage as much as they respond to it.

And for every celebrity who says she isn't a feminist or issues some sort of "I'm not a feminist but" disclaimer, there's Beyoncé sampling Nigerian author and feminist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie and Amy Poehler keeping feminism funny — and going viral. There are also the many non-celebrity women and men proudly identifying as feminists and doing the hard work of promoting women's rights every day. They aren't getting nearly as much coverage as this week's "I'm not a feminist" ingénue. But they are building a world where, someday, "Are you a feminist?" won't be a question — not because the belief that men and women should be equal will have died out, but because the ideal will have become reality.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a28510/misconceptions-about-feminism/

I think the choice of a MGTOW lifestyle sounds perfect for you, and living without the influence of women, and avoiding long-term relationships and marriage with them, certainly comports with your fears and hostility toward women. It also makes clear that your antipathy isn't just toward feminists, it's toward women generally.

Quote:

The only real commonality is that we have all chosen not to engage in long term relationships with women, including marriage. We have decided this in order to protect ourselves, our livelihoods, our well beings, and our finances from the current culture where toxic, over-privileged, hypergamous women use the courts and the social climate to take advantage of and extort men. We have decided to live our lives for ourselves and ourselves alone.

So, enjoy your MGTOW lifestyle, and video-games, and internet porn, and excessive drinking, and male bonding and all the other "masculine" pursuits that having a woman in your life, or influencing your life, might interfere with. It's your life, it's your choice.

Personally, as a woman, I'd hate to live my life without the influence of men, and without close long-term sexual and loving relationships with them, and without close friendships with them, and without the input of their thinking and gender perspective.

And, if your only contribution, in thread after thread, is going to consist of expressing your obsession with "feminists", based on your extremely biased, and negatively stereotyped characterizations of them, I'd really suggest you give it a rest. If you're really into a MGTOW lifestyle, why are you letting feminists--women-- dominate your thinking and perceptions, and take up so much of your time and energy? Go play video games, watch internet porn, drink excessively, stock your man cave with goodies and snacks for the Super Bowl, truly rid your life of women and their noxious influence and effect on you. And I'd definitely stay away from A2K, we have far too many women, outspoken women, and men who like, love, enjoy, and support women, here, and being around them will only aggravate you, and life is too short to waste on such needless stress.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Quote:
The problem, then, seems to be the word itself, and not what it stands for. When people learn what feminism actually means either through education or by simply hearing a definition of the term, they're more likely to adopt it. But who can blame folks for initially balking? Right-wing radio hosts have built entire careers on branding feminist-minded women "feminazis," and every inch toward equality has seen a foot of backlash, often in the form of stereotyping feminists as unattractive man-haters.

The solution to that problem is very simple, really: let feminists openly campaign for the love and respect of men. This should go a long way to dispel the impression that feminists are men-haters... :-)

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The solution to that problem is very simple, really: let feminists openly campaign for the love and respect of men. This should go a long way to dispel the impression that feminists are men-haters... :-)

And let blacks campaign for the love and respect of the white right-wing commentators who brand them race-baiters? And have peace-loving American Muslims campaign for the love and respect of right-wing Islamophobes who call them "towel-heads" hell bent on terrorism to destroy our way of life?

Do all Italians have to prove they're not connected to the mafia too?

The solution isn't to ass kiss those who intentionally try to distort and demonize you through inaccurate overly-generalized, inaccurate negative stereotypes, many of which have roots in right-wing conservative noise makers. It's for people to educate themselves so they don't fall prey to thinking in terms of those stereotypes.

Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge regarding feminism knows that, as a movement, it was never about man-'hating, and it still isn't about man-hating--it's about advocacy on behalf of women, and, more than ever now, many men join in that advocacy to benefit their wives and daughters and sisters. To say that feminists have to campaign to prove their non-man-hating credentials, is like demanding that someone, who's never laid a hand on his spouse, answer the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Men felt threatened when women were demanding the vote, they tried to brand the suffragettes as man-haters too. Any marginalized group seeking more political and social power will be seen as a threat to the group that wants to remain in control of it. And thanks to the advocacy of those suffragettes, and the civil rights advocacy of feminists in the 60's and 70's, women do have more political power now, and considerably less restrictive social and societal gender options in their lives.

You tell me why women, and feminists, like Jessica Valenti, or Gloria Steinem, both singled out by nononono, should have to "campaign for the love and respect of men"? Why would anyone have the impression these women, both of whom have always enjoyed loving relationships with the men in their lives, and married men, harbor deep personal hostility toward all men in general? Advocating social and political change, for the purpose of removing oppressive forces, doesn't equate with personal hostility--Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't about expressing or promoting any feeling of hostility toward all whites, his goal was to improve life for blacks.

I think, thanks to the internet, and social media, we now see loads of women sharing experiences and views, and supporting each other. But, while that gives some current journalistic feminists, and their views, more of an audience, this outpouring of female voices represents women considerably more than it does any organized feminist movement.

I don't think most people pay much attention to feminism any more--it's the mens rights activist sites and the right-wing conservatives, with their paranoid messages about "a war on men" who are giving them more attention than they actually merit currently. Beyond contraception and abortion rights, which are already an issue for many women, current feminists are not focused on highly identifiable issues that most people can identify, or identify with, they have no prominent leaders or organizers, and I don't see them as currently actually doing much of anything in terms of social activism. I completely fail to understand the hysteria of those who are attacking them, and negatively stereotyping them, and trying to portray them as a major threat to men, although a lot of this is tied to right-wing conservative politics.

The active social/political force we see now is women, not feminism, but it's certainly due to the efforts of past feminists that that's now possible. Concerned men should best pay more attention to women, and what they are saying, and spend less time worrying about "feminism" or a marginal group of "feminists".

How about having men openly campaign for the love and respect of women. That might finally render all vestiges of feminism unnecessary Wink

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The solution isn't to ass kiss those who intentionally try to distort and demonize you

Who's talking of demonizing? Your article pointed that feminism has an image problem including among women in the US. I'm just saying there's a very easy way to deal with that problem: communicate your love and support of men. I see information campaigns where men stand up for women and gender equality all the time.

Can't women stand up for men in a similar awareness raising campaign, even if it is only for the sake of improving feminism's image? Is that totally off the table? If yes, then I understand where the image problem comes from, and it's not FAUX News...

I identify as a feminist, and have done so since being 15 yr old. That's 40 years ago... I (a man) have no problem with that label which American women seem to reject. Isn't that a bit odd? I don't know why they reject the feminist label but I know that blaming the extreme right won't help, blaming men won't help, and blaming "anti-feminist women" won't help either. If American feminists want to save the political movement of feminism in their country (as opposed to a small academic coterie), they must understand what they did wrong and correct it. That's what responsible people do when they're stuck. They don't blame others; they try and raise their game instead.

I suspect where American feminists (and a few French ones too) could improve is in 1) reducing the anti-men rhetoric or even changing it to a pro-men rhetoric once in a while; 2) addressing themselves to the poor and not just the privileged white; 3) less clichés and a better metrics of progress, i.e. more realism and transparency about the remaining challenges and the progress that has happened over the past few decades. Feminism is not about hating men, it is about changing the system so that it's fairer to women and to men. That implies changing mindsets, including the mindsets of women.

If US feminists keep up whatever they've been doing, my guess is eventually they'll disappear from everybody's radar. Including women's...

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

How about having men openly campaign for the love and respect of women. That might finally render all vestiges of feminism unnecessary Wink

http://www.heforshe.org/#take-action

There are many of those... Wake up.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The solution to that problem is very simple, really: let feminists openly campaign for the love and respect of men. This should go a long way to dispel the impression that feminists are men-haters... :-)

I have another solution to the problem of feminists being perceived as "man-haters".

Let feminists stop wasting their time on worrying about what the patriarchy is up to and start spending their time in science and coding clubs.

Then when some fool called them "man-haters" they could say "sorry, did you mean job-creators?"

1 Reply

@Kolyo,

That is a joke, but the serious side of it is that there IS a perception that some of the issues raised by feminists are futile, and that they should get down to business in a more pragmatic and helpful manner instead. There is no such thing as a "patriarchy" in western societies. That's beating a dead horse.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Who's talking of demonizing?

Are you totally ignoring nononono's biased rants about feminism? Or A Voice for Men's carrying on about "feminazis"?

Quote:

Your article pointed that feminism has an image problem including among women in the US. I'm just saying there's a very easy way to deal with that problem: communicate your love and support of men. I see information campaigns where men stand up for women and gender equality all the time.

That wasn't "my article" it was an article nononono linked to.

And the author of that article concluded that the reluctance of people to want to identify as feminists, or even to know whether they were feminists, was largely based on ignorance of feminism and the promotion of negative stereotypes, like the man-hater label, that some have always used to try to discredit it. She suggested people needed to educate themselves about feminism, since it was the label, and not the goals, of feminism that seemed to be the turnoff.

I don't think feminism has an "image problem"--I do think there are adversary forces trying to saddle them with an image problem by actively promoting highly negative, and distorted, stereotypes of what feminism--as a movement-- is about, and what the current majority views within feminism are. Personally, I don't care whether people want to accept or reject the label feminism, as long as they support the goal of equality for women.

Quote:

If American feminists want to save the political movement of feminism in their country (as opposed to a small academic coterie), they must understand what they did wrong and correct it

I'm not sure they want to save the movement, it was actually on the verge of extinction before Jessica Valenti breathed some life into it by providing a presence on the internet. And I don't think it's any longer a vital or necessary movement now that women have acquired more political and social and economic power, and can speak out for themselves, which they are doing more and more, and louder and louder, without requiring or needing an advocacy group to promote their interests.

Feminists haven't caught my interest in decades, and it was only because of all the sudden negative chatter about them, in various A2K threads, instigated by less than a handful of anti-feminist male posters, that I began reading more of their current internet articles, none of which were proposing any sort of radical action, or line of thought, or complaining about anything much beyond "sexism". I really didn't find any credible journalistic feminists--and that's who's writing the articles --expressing any hostility toward men in general, none at all, and they seemed to be enjoying the support of a fair number of male readers.

Quote:

I suspect where American feminists (and a few French ones too) could improve is in 1) reducing the anti-men rhetoric or even changing it to a pro-men rhetoric once in a while; 2) addressing themselves to the poor and not just the privileged white; 3) less clichés and a better metrics of progress, i.e. more realism and transparency about the remaining challenges and the progress that has happened over the past few decades

1. I'm not seeing or hearing the "anti-male rhetoric" from current reputable nameable feminists--where it may pop up is in anonymous tweets or comments, and lord knows what sort of dingbats are authoring those.
Which specific current American and French feminists do you currently find voicing clear anti-male views? Can you provide links to what they are saying, so I can better inform myself.

2. Gloria Steinem, probably the most highly influential and effective feminist organizer during second-wave feminism, has always been somewhat pro-male and humanistic in her thinking. She has spoken out on issues she feels negatively affect men--she opposes the practice of male circumcision, for instance. She's also dismissed/dissed all academic/philosophical feminists for being overly obscure in their thinking and language.

Current third-wave feminism opposes all forms of gender discrimination, which is why they strongly support LGBT rights and issues, including gay marriage. Gay men are men--a fact that those who see feminism as anti-male often forget.

3 Current feminism is very much concerned with the poor and economic issues--just look at N.O.W.'s Web site--it's a major issue, and concern, particularly as it affects minority women, and immigrant women, and generally impacts the lives of many single mothers. If you think the concerns are focused on "the privileged white" you're considerably behind the times.

4. I really don't hear reputable feminists speaking, or writing, in clichés. Cliches don't communicate very clearly or effectively, and the majority of those feminists active on the internet are professional writers with more than adequate vocabularies and descriptive skills. What I do see is many of them trying to provide a teaching and educative function. For instance, they just don't label something as "sexist", for instance, they will explain why it is sexist, and what problems arise from that. Consciousness raising has always been a component of feminism--they try to make people aware of things that might not be immediately obvious--and I still see them doing that now. They are trying to change mind-sets and make people more aware.

Quote:

If US feminists keep up whatever they've been doing, my guess is eventually they'll disappear from everybody's radar. Including women's...

I think that's already happened, not because of any negative image, but because, as more and more women gain entrance into the seats of power and influence, bringing a female perspective with them, and the position of women in society becomes more of a level playing field, and more and more average woman make their voices and opinions heard, in the voting booth, on the internet, etc., feminists simply become more and more obsolete and unnecessary as an advocacy group.

As far as I'm concerned, if feminists haven't been doing or saying anything important enough to attract my interest, in decades, they aren't doing much.

But feminism is a global movement, and it's on that global level where it is still necessary, and active, and vital.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

No such thing as patriarchy in western societies??
I'll gladly say it's less than when I was born.

1 Reply

@firefly,

"I'm not sure they want to save the movement, it was actually on the verge of extinction before Jessica Valenti breathed some life into it by providing a presence on the internet. And I don't think it's any longer a vital or necessary movement now that women have acquired more political and social and economic power, and can speak out for themselves, which they are doing more and more, and louder and louder, without requiring or needing an advocacy group to promote their interests."

I've looked at Jessica Valenti as sort of oddly uninteresting, that is just me, easily bored, more to read, I skip along in guardian reads.

On women getting listened to more, yes. On their being listened to enough, you must live in paradise.

I am not against men's talk on all this. I'm lucky in that I've been acquainted with a lot of good men. You are talking in privileged circumstance.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Between the Womens Studies departments at Universities and the sexual assault industry the feminists run a multi billion dollar empire. To claim that the feminists dont exists or barely exist is to stretch credibility far beyond the breaking point.

Doubt me? Try to get a job in either career field while disputing feminist dogma. Wont happen.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

It's really amazing how ignorant you are with each added post; your tiny bit of real knowledge is a danger to all of society.
I must ask; have you ever suffered brain damage?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

There is no such thing as a "patriarchy" in western societies. That's beating a dead horse.

Patriarchal institutions, attitudes, and societal structures don't just vanish. Sorry, that horse isn't dead--it's far from dead. And even though I'm not a feminist, or very well versed in feminist thought, I can clearly see that.

The U.S. Senate is very much an "old boys club"--and I was flabbergasted to recently hear Senator Kirsten Gillibrand talk about the sexist, and inappropriate, comments made about her body and her fluctuating weight by some of her male colleagues. She viewed it as a generational thing and felt that sort of behavior would vanish as more younger men came into the Senate, since they had been raised to relate to women differently.

And Republicans in government, mostly male, are still trying to control women's bodies--that's a manifestation of patriarchy too. In fact the Republican men just got a rude awakening on that score. They were about to introduce a bill to further limit abortion when their Republican women colleagues, not exactly known for being wild-eyed feminists, suddenly announced they would not support, or vote for the bill. They just withdrew the bill. Smile

It's no longer about feminism, it's about women making their presence known, and their voices heard.

I'm not sure you really understand what feminists mean when they refer to "patriarchy"--and it really has to be understood from their perspective to comprehend what they are talking about. I had to do a lot of recent reading to catch onto it. Patriarchy operates in all sorts of forms, some obvious, some fairly subtle, and some of the feminist views are conscious raising in that regard, and I found them worthwhile to consider.

As I see it, from my own perspective, all major Western religions maintain a patriarchal structure, and, to some extent, promote a traditional patriarchal life-style in their followers. The main objections to gay marriage are/were religiously based. As long as the religions hold onto patriarchy, as an essential component of their basic structure and tradition, patriarchy will be alive and well.

Quote:

they should get down to business in a more pragmatic and helpful manner

What business should they get down to? Who is going to fund it? Who's going to organize it? Academic/philosophical feminists? Laughing

Have they even been able to get safe, quality, affordable day care for the children of working women? Obama, who basically is a feminist, is finally making some noise to raise that as an issue of importance for women, and women in positions of power and influence, like Sen. Gillibrand, are doing the same for other issues of importance to women, like sexual assaults in the military and on campuses.

Feminism is no longer an organized group of social activists coalesced around galvanizing social issues--as was the case 50 and 60 years ago. That's why most people don't even know what a feminist is these days--they are so low profile, often mostly contained on college campuses, where their interests are teaching and not activism, they are barely noticeable. That's why I can't understand why anyone views them as a threat.

In reality, social activism on behalf of women, is being prompted now by male feminists, like the President and Vice President, and by women in government, like Sen. Gillibrand, or Sen. MaCaskill, and that's fine. It's the issues that are important. It's the voices of women, not just feminists, that must be listened to, and I'm very happy to see that going on more and more. And, if the Republicans don't start listening to women they'll have a hard time occupying the Oval Office any time soon.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

The solution to that problem is very simple, really: let feminists openly campaign for the love and respect of men. This should go a long way to dispel the impression that feminists are men-haters... :-)

Unfortunately this will never happen Oliver. Feminists above all else simply must keep up the charade that women in western society are oppressed by men. If they don't, they'll all be out of jobs. And there is literally BILLIONS of dollars to be made in perpetuating hatred towards men.

And the public unfortunately buys this bullshit hook line and sinker. Can you think of any other group of people that it would be socially acceptable to openly call for the genocide of? Or to say that that group of people are all rapists who are Satan-like and need to be taught not to rape?

I wanted to say Oliver, you have made some very good points in this thread. I'm particularly glad you mentioned Emma Watson's "He For She" nonsense. I think that campaign exemplifies exactly how self centred and hateful feminism really is. The whole point of "He For She" is that men should be subservient to women, just like dogs.

I only partially read the first post firefly posted after my last post and ignored everything else she wrote after that because she's so delusional that there's no point in me wasting my time on a lunatic like her anymore. The one and only thing she's probably ever said that wasn't complete nonsense is that I shouldn't be wasting my time arguing with her. She's absolutely correct on that account. Why on earth should I waste my time arguing with primates of such lower intelligence, who are so much less evolved like she is...

I think it's really funny that she tells me to go play videogames and watch the super bowl, because she's completely glazed over one of the big points I made in my last post about how MGTOW are an extremely diverse collective of men with completely different interests and approaches to the philosophy. Instead she's attacking a strawman caricature of MGTOW. It's very funny to me because I don't play video games or have any interest in football whatsoever. I couldn't even tell you who's in the superbowl this year! It's also very funny to me that she attempts to use shaming tactics by implying that there is no other explanation for choosing to limit your interactions with women other than having an antipathy towards them, and that men who don't want to get married are somehow lesser human beings. Well she had better send an angry letter to people like Leonardo DiCaprio also then. Because men like him are living the MGTOW lifestyle in every aspect but the name. But no, I guess MGTOW are a bunch of losers who just hate women, of course they are Rolling Eyes

But that's what firefly does. She's a bigot who generalizes and straw mans people that she disagrees with. And then when those people call her on her bullshit, she screams "MISOGYNY!!!" just like the true feminist that she is, to distract from having been caught in her hypocrisy.

I think it's hilarious that she claims that I'm stereotyping all feminists, when in my very last post I listed 3 feminists whom I admire and respect. But then it gets even more ridiculous when she turns around and herself stereotypes all anti-feminists, including MGTOW and MRA's as losers and haters. Because you see stereotyped characterizations are only acceptable when firefly makes them. Because according to firefly, it's wrong to stereotype people, unless those people are disagreeing with her...

And that's because firefly is a giant hypocrite.

She's proven her hypocrisy and gynocentrism by negatively stereotyping anyone who criticizes feminism, all the while crying "Misogyny!", accusing those very people of making stereotypes themselves simply for being critical of feminism and gynocentrism.

And that's why firefly has completely discredited herself and anything that she has to say. .

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I don't know what they call 'patriarchy' exactly. Evidently it's something else than the ethnological concept. To me, gender roles are enforced by men AND women. They are transmitted through education, where women play a critical role. It's not like a bunch of bald old men at the top of society was telling the rest of us how to raise our kids... So going to war against 'patriarchy' seems to me like fighting windmills, unless i am missing an important concept here. We'd better raise our kids in a more equalitarian way, and that includes banning genital mutilation for BOTH sexes for instance. Stop male circumcision, even if Grandpa AND GRANDMA aren't too happy about it.

If that's fighting patriarchy, then count me in.

1 Reply

@nononono,

Thanks for your support but I fear it's based on a misunderstanding. I quoted the he4she thing as a positive development, to encourage women and in particular those believing in gender equality to do the same thing for men.

I consider myself a feminist and i do take exception to wholesale description of feminists as man-haters.

I don't believe there is a vast conspiracy of feminists to make billions of dollars at anybody's expense. People fight for issues they hold dear. It's normal.

I am aware that in the west, some boys / men are just avoiding females for self-protection. There's a long tradition of that on both sides of the gender divide, but it takes modern forms including video games and porn. I haven't given up on women as sexual partners yet but i probably could. It's a matter of trust or lack thereof. Too much gender wars leads there.

0 Replies

@firefly,

I proposed an awareness campaign where feminists would defend and proclaim their love for men, not their love for demonizing anti-feminists... Of course feminism has opponents, but all men are not feminist opponents.

If feminism is not about man-hating, and if indeed gender roles are unfair to men too, then this sort of campaigns should happen as a matter of course. Just like there are men campaigning for women, there should be women campaigning for men. It should not come as a surprise or a shock to anyone.

I too know little about what current feminists say. I disagree about feminism being over. The fight hasn't even started in Islam, for instance. Feminism may be irrelevant to nowadays rich white american women. The rest of us are still counting on it...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I too know little about what current feminists say. I disagree about feminism being over. The fight hasn't even started in Islam, for instance. Feminism may be irrelevant to nowadays rich white american women. The rest of us are still counting on it...

You're disagreeing with me on something we agree on Laughing

I clearly said feminism is still needed, and active, on a global level.

And, you are wrong, feminism is already a force in Iran, and other Middle Eastern/Islamic countries, promoted by Iranian women, and the women who live in those countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism

I didn't say feminism in the U.S. is over, I said it's becoming obsolete, it's becoming unnecessary. And that's good, it's a natural progression. As goals of equality are achieved, and societal obstacles to equality are identified, there is less need for the specific advocacy group that pushed for them. I think the primary function of current feminists is to continue to raise awareness of problems, and even patterns of thought, adversely affecting and limiting women's lives, but once those issues are identified, it's up to the larger society, and not just feminists, to work to solve them.

I continue to think your idea of a campaign "where feminists would defend and proclaim their love for men" is absurd--this isn't about who loves who, or an image campaign to woo supporters, you are missing the entire point of feminism and viewing it in rather simplistic terms. Either people are attracted to, and supportive of, the issues and goals identified by feminism, or they aren't. What they think of individual feminists, or feminists as a group, really doesn't matter.

Let me give you an analogy...

Right-wing conservative individuals, and Web sites, and commentators, respond to complaints of unfairness, and injustice, and discrimination, by leaders in the black community, by branding them "race baiters" implying they are only angry rabble rousers intent on stirring up and intensifying racial conflicts and tensions to the detriment of whites and their interests . These are attempts to discredit their issues, motivations, and goals. It is analogous to branding feminists, concerned with issues of unfairness, injustice, and discrimination, as angry "man haters" who are trying to stir up gender conflicts and tensions, to the detriment of men and their interests, in an attempt to discredit their issues, motivations, and goals. In both cases, one group is pressing for change, and an opposing, more right-wing conservative group, wants to maintain the status quo, for their own reasons and benefit.

I can't imagine the effectiveness, or dignity, of a campaign where black people would declare their love and lack of hostility toward whites to try to change the negative "race baiting" image their opponents saddle them with, with the intent of getting white people to like them better. The thought is absurd.

People, including whites, will support the black community, of their own initiative, when they agree with their issues, motivations, and goals, regardless of whether they like or dislike someone like Al Sharpton. And, analogously, men will support feminism when they agree with their issues, motivations, and goals, regardless of whether they like or dislike some particular strident or shrill or angry particular feminist. Whites will show up and join black organized protests and rallies and men will show up and join feminist organized protests and rallies, when they agree with their issues and goals. And that goes on all the time. And, if men want to create a campaign to show that they support feminist goals, and that this makes them feminists too, that's fine. But, feminists, first and foremost, as an advocacy group, are concerned with women--having them campaign for men and men's issues would make them something other than feminists, like humanists. Individual women can, and should, support men's issues, when they agree with them, but I think it's unreasonable to want or expect an advocacy group, which exists on behalf of women, to do that. It's like expecting the NAACP to promote issues of concern mainly for whites (if there were such issues).

I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion of feminism, since neither of us is that well versed in what current feminist thinkers are actually doing and saying, in terms of specific issues, and you do seem to try to stereotype them none-the-less, not necessarily negatively, but in terms that are not really accurate either--like they speak in too many clichés--while ignoring the issues they are speaking about, whether expressed in catch phrases or not.

Feminism can't be meaningfully discussed without better knowledge of feminism---for instance, you have to learn, by reading them, how various feminist writers and thinkers, use and define the concept of patriarchy, and how and where they see it operating, otherwise you can't understand it--it's considerably more complex than you think.

I think, given our lack of better knowledge of current third-wave feminism, our common frame of reference regarding current feminism should be the N.O.W. Web site--that is the primary feminist organization in the U.S. and the primary lobbying group in terms of feminist issues, and they clearly identify the issues and goals important to them, so at least we can have general agreement on what they are saying and doing in that regard. That is the public face of feminism, and the more accurate image of current feminism. It reflects no man-hating attitudes, it reflects concerns for minority women, immigrant women, and economically disadvantaged women, and opposes all forms of gender discrimination, including how it is expressed toward the LGBT community.

http://now.org/

http://now.org/issues/

The true awareness campaign is already going on--it is the N.O.W. Web site.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's not like a bunch of bald old men at the top of society was telling the rest of us how to raise our kids.

they're not all bald, but it is still predominately old, white men telling Canadians how things should be. Religion, politics, big business - all controlled by old, white men.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

I didn't say feminism in the U.S. is over, I said it's becoming obsolete, it's becoming unnecessary.

And I disagree with that. You might be right as far as your own social group is concerned, but not others. I suspect Hispanics have their own set of issues there, and Muslims too. When I speak of feminism and Islam, I am not talking only of the Middle East. There are Muslims everywhere. Religiously-motivated excision and forced marriages probably happen in the US as well. I know they happen in France.

Quote:

I continue to think your idea of a campaign "where feminists would defend and proclaim their love for men" is absurd [...] I can't imagine the effectiveness, or dignity, of a campaign where black people would declare their love and lack of hostility toward whites to try to change the negative "race baiting" image their opponents saddle them with, with the intent of getting white people to like them better. The thought is absurd.

During the civil rights movement, quite a few white people fought alongside MLK and others. These people were not "absurd". They showed to other white people that this fight was NOT about one group in society trying to get some advantage from another group in society. They showed (or tried to show) that it was about the entire society reclaiming some decency. And if there's ever a form of reverse racism or a situation where a white person is discriminated against because he or she is white, I would expect pro-black organisations to argue against it, too. If racism is bad for blacks it is also bad for whites.

This sort of cross-purpose militancy creates solidarity and promotes higher goals than just the zero-sum-game of class or sex warfare. Which is why it is a good thing for feminism to have male supporters.

Now, you may decide that you, personally, will never support a pro-man issue, that it's not your problem, that you couldn't care less, that it's not for you or that it doesn't make any sense... That is your right. But I am arguing for something more than just this "this is not my problem" approach. E.g. on an issue like male genital mutilation (aka circumcision), I would expect feminists to be saying something... and I am saying that if they were more often seen as defending men, when men or boys are placed in a disadvantaged position, this would help dispel any perception that they are in this just for their own gain.

But it was just a suggestion. It does not really matter much.

2 Replies

Looking for advice. Was I assaulted?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know