8 ms·

The only problem I have with feminism is that it's often a movement against men, and not for women. I think they would be a lot more successful doing things to

by et1337 11y ago

The only problem I have with feminism is that it's often a movement against men, and not for women. I think they would be a lot more successful doing things to encourage women rather than disparage men. Meredith would not have had to write this article. Of course, it's a lot harder to be positive rather than negative.

dmansen 11y ago
you should try reading about feminism sometime
- nailer 11y ago
  Maybe they just read, say, Dworkin, on how all heterosexual sex is rape? Pretending people who disagree with political movements just need to understand those movements more is presumptuous.
  - Gracana 11y ago
    Dworkin rejects that interpretation of her writing. "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."
  - lsy 11y ago
    Michael Moorcock: Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying? Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.… My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse — it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman.
    - nailer 11y ago
      I understand Dworkin says she didn't say that. Here is the actual quote, which seems very different from the 'point' above: > A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth --literature, science, philosophy, pornography-- calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.
      - lsy 11y ago
        If you read this in context, it's clear that she's saying "this is the view of patriarchal society", not "this is how things should be". Later in the same chapter you're quoting from, Dworkin says: > Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been—despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex—a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible… These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance.
        antihero 11y ago
        This is actually really good stuff, I've never been a fan of Dworkin due to some out of context quotes. I would say that this attitude isn't one held by all women, though.
  - dmansen 11y ago
    i think it's valid to tell people to educate themselves when they're saying incorrect things. also applies to you, see other replies
lukeasrodgers 11y ago
I am a man, and feminist, and have spoken with many other feminists over the years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism, etc. In my experience I'd say less than 1% of feminism/feminists have anything to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, but I'm hard-pressed to come up with any other serious examples.
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  What about the Vagina Monologues?
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    What about them?
    - cpncrunch 11y ago
      They are very anti-male. (I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, and if you read the wikipedia page or watch the play, you'll see what I mean).
      - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
        I have not seen the play, but looking at the wikipedia page, they give eight examples of the monologues, and I don't see anything that's obviously anti-male. (unless you're going to get angry about "My Vagina Was My Village, a monologue compiled from the testimonies of Bosnian women subjected to rape camps.")
        cpncrunch 11y ago
        I have seen the play. The issue is that all the male-female relationships are portrayed as bad, whereas female-female relationships are portrayed as good (even when the girl was underage). This is discussed in the wikipedia page, and it's also pretty obvious if you watch the play.
ericmo 11y ago
Feminism isn't a monolith, there are lots of flavors in feminism. Only the most radical feminists are "against" men, but they are far from being a majority. Many feminists actually do talk about "sorority" in that sense of women helping each other, however, many other feminists don't agree with that. First reason is that this would block criticism within feminism, such as the one made in the post. Second reason is that women aren't all equal, women don't all have the same problems, so if feminism embraces the sorority concept, it would lead to minorities' issues just getting ignored, i.e. no one would care about autistic women. So, it's not that feminism isn't for women, but women do have their differences and they need to deal with that. Lastly, feminism isn't about being against men. Sure, some radical feminists are against men, but I don't think they're taken seriously. Actually, there is a debate among feminists about whether men should or not be allowed to engage in feminism, and there are plenty who think they should. How can you expect men to help in feminism if feminism is against them? You can't, so that's not the case. [Edit: removed a line I thought it wasn't polite 10 minutes after posting.]
- exstudent2 11y ago
  I think that the problem is that the extreme feminists are being taken seriously. Journalism in particular seems to be very radicalized. What you end up with is an outsized voice for an extreme minority opinion. I think a lot of the backlash against feminism is about the traction some of the more radical ideas have made. Examples: #killallmen, male tears... There are other extreme examples that have been codified in academia, but the media issues seem more cut and dry.
  - ericmo 11y ago
    Just to be clear, I don't think radical feminists shouldn't be taken seriously, just the extremely radical shouldn't. There's room for radical feminism, not for hate. "Male tears" isn't a radical feminist thing, many non-radical feminists use it. Actually, it's quite the opposite, it's men who have always said feminist women (radical or not) are anti-men, so they decided to play along and made a joke about it. While I think "male tears" isn't anti-men, I do think it could be against hegemonic masculinity, which is when men are told they have to be strong, non-emotional, etc; e.g. the past few days people have been talking about some research that implies that male gamers who harass women (i.e. they comply with hegemonic masculinty) are "losers", and some people have talked about it using #maletears. There's some anti-hegemonic masculinity Schadenfreude going on there. Some people think #maletears create a stigma around men who do cry, but it's also the opposite, it's joking about men who think they can't cry, they should be allowed to cry if they want to. About the #killallmen, I think it didn't get traction where I live, in Brazil, I hadn't heard about it. I'm not sure what is it about, but I can see how some feminist women would argue that men do assault and kill women every day, systematically, so it could be sarcastic. Also, as something that would instantly backfire, it could be an attempt to destroy feminism from within, but you see, any feminist with a basic understanding of gender theory would immediately see thru that: men are not all equal, just as women are not all equal. So, let's say, if we're killing all men, what do we do to trans women? See, it doesn't work in a feminist framework.
logfromblammo 11y ago
I have also encountered the misandrist feminists. Your impression of their numbers may be inflated due to their ability to attract additional attention by stirring up conflict. The nearer-to-the-median feminists are quieter because, in 2015, they have already achieved a large majority of the original goals of the movement, and all that is really required now is for the old bigots to die off or retire, and for the largely sex-egalitarian younger generations to take over the reins of power. Feminist extremists are, by demanding faster and more extreme cultural changes, rallying the last bastions of misogynists to unite in opposition, in one of the best real-world examples of the Batman Effect[0] that I have ever seen. Anyone who joins in their squabbles tends to get dragged down into the mud with them. Just back away slowly. Additionally, newly-minted masculinists revive "manly" traditions like moustache waxing, shaving with straight razors, overblown midlife crises, cars with carburetors, and paleo dieting and lifestyle practices. Their champions are characters like Ron Swanson and Isaiah "Old Spice Guy" Mustafa. They avoid conflict with feminists by focusing mainly on things most women simply have no interest in. Like growing out your facial hair. If you avoid looking at the loud, flashy extremists, we all seem to be doing pretty well, and still steadily improving, on the remaining sexual equality issues. [0] Batman Effect: Any sufficiently powerful social force will generate its own opposition. Corrupt Gotham created the Batman. The Batman created crime-lords like the Joker. There is no sound of one hand clapping, because another hand always rises to meet it.

by et1337 11y ago

dmansen 11y ago

you should try reading about feminism sometime

nailer 11y ago
Maybe they just read, say, Dworkin, on how all heterosexual sex is rape? Pretending people who disagree with political movements just need to understand those movements more is presumptuous.
- Gracana 11y ago
  Dworkin rejects that interpretation of her writing. "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."
- lsy 11y ago
  Michael Moorcock: Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying? Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.… My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse — it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman.
  - nailer 11y ago
    I understand Dworkin says she didn't say that. Here is the actual quote, which seems very different from the 'point' above: > A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth --literature, science, philosophy, pornography-- calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.
    - lsy 11y ago
      If you read this in context, it's clear that she's saying "this is the view of patriarchal society", not "this is how things should be". Later in the same chapter you're quoting from, Dworkin says: > Women have also wanted intercourse to work in this sense: women have wanted intercourse to be, for women, an experience of equality and passion, sensuality and intimacy. Women have a vision of love that includes men as human too; and women want the human in men, including in the act of intercourse. Even without the dignity of equal power, women have believed in the redeeming potential of love. There has been—despite the cruelty of exploitation and forced sex—a consistent vision for women of a sexuality based on a harmony that is both sensual and possible… These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance.
      - antihero 11y ago
        This is actually really good stuff, I've never been a fan of Dworkin due to some out of context quotes. I would say that this attitude isn't one held by all women, though.
- dmansen 11y ago
  i think it's valid to tell people to educate themselves when they're saying incorrect things. also applies to you, see other replies

lukeasrodgers 11y ago

I am a man, and feminist, and have spoken with many other feminists over the years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism, etc. In my experience I'd say less than 1% of feminism/feminists have anything to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, but I'm hard-pressed to come up with any other serious examples.

cpncrunch 11y ago
What about the Vagina Monologues?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  What about them?
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    They are very anti-male. (I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, and if you read the wikipedia page or watch the play, you'll see what I mean).
    - GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
      I have not seen the play, but looking at the wikipedia page, they give eight examples of the monologues, and I don't see anything that's obviously anti-male. (unless you're going to get angry about "My Vagina Was My Village, a monologue compiled from the testimonies of Bosnian women subjected to rape camps.")
      - cpncrunch 11y ago
        I have seen the play. The issue is that all the male-female relationships are portrayed as bad, whereas female-female relationships are portrayed as good (even when the girl was underage). This is discussed in the wikipedia page, and it's also pretty obvious if you watch the play.

ericmo 11y ago

Feminism isn't a monolith, there are lots of flavors in feminism. Only the most radical feminists are "against" men, but they are far from being a majority. Many feminists actually do talk about "sorority" in that sense of women helping each other, however, many other feminists don't agree with that. First reason is that this would block criticism within feminism, such as the one made in the post. Second reason is that women aren't all equal, women don't all have the same problems, so if feminism embraces the sorority concept, it would lead to minorities' issues just getting ignored, i.e. no one would care about autistic women. So, it's not that feminism isn't for women, but women do have their differences and they need to deal with that. Lastly, feminism isn't about being against men. Sure, some radical feminists are against men, but I don't think they're taken seriously. Actually, there is a debate among feminists about whether men should or not be allowed to engage in feminism, and there are plenty who think they should. How can you expect men to help in feminism if feminism is against them? You can't, so that's not the case. [Edit: removed a line I thought it wasn't polite 10 minutes after posting.]

exstudent2 11y ago
I think that the problem is that the extreme feminists are being taken seriously. Journalism in particular seems to be very radicalized. What you end up with is an outsized voice for an extreme minority opinion. I think a lot of the backlash against feminism is about the traction some of the more radical ideas have made. Examples: #killallmen, male tears... There are other extreme examples that have been codified in academia, but the media issues seem more cut and dry.
- ericmo 11y ago
  Just to be clear, I don't think radical feminists shouldn't be taken seriously, just the extremely radical shouldn't. There's room for radical feminism, not for hate. "Male tears" isn't a radical feminist thing, many non-radical feminists use it. Actually, it's quite the opposite, it's men who have always said feminist women (radical or not) are anti-men, so they decided to play along and made a joke about it. While I think "male tears" isn't anti-men, I do think it could be against hegemonic masculinity, which is when men are told they have to be strong, non-emotional, etc; e.g. the past few days people have been talking about some research that implies that male gamers who harass women (i.e. they comply with hegemonic masculinty) are "losers", and some people have talked about it using #maletears. There's some anti-hegemonic masculinity Schadenfreude going on there. Some people think #maletears create a stigma around men who do cry, but it's also the opposite, it's joking about men who think they can't cry, they should be allowed to cry if they want to. About the #killallmen, I think it didn't get traction where I live, in Brazil, I hadn't heard about it. I'm not sure what is it about, but I can see how some feminist women would argue that men do assault and kill women every day, systematically, so it could be sarcastic. Also, as something that would instantly backfire, it could be an attempt to destroy feminism from within, but you see, any feminist with a basic understanding of gender theory would immediately see thru that: men are not all equal, just as women are not all equal. So, let's say, if we're killing all men, what do we do to trans women? See, it doesn't work in a feminist framework.

logfromblammo 11y ago

I have also encountered the misandrist feminists. Your impression of their numbers may be inflated due to their ability to attract additional attention by stirring up conflict. The nearer-to-the-median feminists are quieter because, in 2015, they have already achieved a large majority of the original goals of the movement, and all that is really required now is for the old bigots to die off or retire, and for the largely sex-egalitarian younger generations to take over the reins of power. Feminist extremists are, by demanding faster and more extreme cultural changes, rallying the last bastions of misogynists to unite in opposition, in one of the best real-world examples of the Batman Effect[0] that I have ever seen. Anyone who joins in their squabbles tends to get dragged down into the mud with them. Just back away slowly. Additionally, newly-minted masculinists revive "manly" traditions like moustache waxing, shaving with straight razors, overblown midlife crises, cars with carburetors, and paleo dieting and lifestyle practices. Their champions are characters like Ron Swanson and Isaiah "Old Spice Guy" Mustafa. They avoid conflict with feminists by focusing mainly on things most women simply have no interest in. Like growing out your facial hair. If you avoid looking at the loud, flashy extremists, we all seem to be doing pretty well, and still steadily improving, on the remaining sexual equality issues. [0] Batman Effect: Any sufficiently powerful social force will generate its own opposition. Corrupt Gotham created the Batman. The Batman created crime-lords like the Joker. There is no sound of one hand clapping, because another hand always rises to meet it.