Is feminism all about man hating?

Ah, the thread is back on track between writing and posting that. As you were, folks

Rights movements are about making the people they aim to support feel safe, not the oppessor class' feelings.

I don't know. I started a thread about using the word oppression as I think it seems to be both a combative and threatening stance to take when talking about the patriarchy.

Men could do so much more on an individual level in my opinion. Doesn't it annoy you as a man that women are scared of you, are worried that you are judging them, will lie quietly below you instead of either participating in sex or telling you no. Doesn't it bother you as a man that your daughters may be constrained in a way that your sons aren't, simply because of their being a woman. Can't you see that the sexist jokes, the simple things like women drive jokes, the stag nights, the porn, the domestic violence, the inability to convict rapists are all part of the same problem.

Men, as individuals, need to act. You need to support women, you have the power to change the system because it's your system. We can do it slowly by chipping away or reject it all together. Neither is ideal.

You, as a man, could live your life in a way that doesn't pay lip service to equality but actively contribute to achieving it. You could work with us.

And yes, we as women could do so much more but it's tiring fighting this every single day. It's soul destroying seeing another victim of abuse. It gets us down, it angers us, it disempowers us. You could help us.

So men who say that people should be treated as individuals and not all tarred with the same brush are whining? If anyone were to make such sweeping generalisations about women or black people or anyone else it would be found offensive for criticism of such prejudice to be called whining
Can you not comprehend the differences in generalising about a privileged group and about an oppressed one?

After making this criticism of men you then promote us to Gods who can apparently stop evil acts from happening. I only wish I were blessed with such super powers. I can assure you that if I had these powers that women would be a lot safer than they are.
I'm not talking about "stopping evil acts from happening". I'm merely stating that complaining about women generalising about men is hardly showing your support for the feminist cause

drjohnsonscat that is a really interesting link, thanks.

I'm going to re-post it in case anyone missed it.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

It would make for a really interesting thread actually. I imagine this is not an isolated case of a man being held up by society whilst everyone conveniently ignores his misogyny.

And I do love a good Orwell quote (if he turns out to be a misgynitst too, please don't tell me ).

From drjohnsonscat's link;

But Gandhi was also a puritan and a misogynist who helped ensure that India remains one of the most sexually repressed nations on earth ? and, by and large, a dreadful place to be born female. George Orwell, in his 1949 essay Reflections on Gandhi, said that "saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent". If only.

Can't we leave dittany out of this? I mean, I personally won't miss her but dragging up stuff she may or may not have said on a deleted thread when she is not even here isn't really cricket.

So how can feminism go more mainstream? How can it present itself as common-sense politics, rather than something only pursued by hairy-legged man-haters? (Not that they are, just how they are perceived).

MrGin - I will no longer respond to you. Your posts are the sort of thing I would consider banning a poster for. But hey, I'm not MNHQ - I'll leave it in their hands and not contribute to any further derailing of this thread.

I would agree with that namechange - there's clear evidence of that here on MN. Women refuse to identify as feminists, they clearly pull women up on double standards but can't see it in their own lives.

I don't blame them - one has to wonder whether the whole 'man-hating- is deliberately overplayed to ensure that feminism is seen as a dirty word and if so, what causes this ?

There's almost certainly a far, far higher percentage of individual men who not only hate women but actively work to harm them, than feminists who hate men and want them all locked up, owned, executed, whatever. Think of those insane US bucketheads best known for their anti-choice activism, and note some of the additions they make. Like the one who wants the victim (or plaintiff) in cases of rape or DV, to be formally referred to as 'the accuser' - but that this should only happen when in cases of rape or DV. Not insurance fraud, not burglary, not bar brawls.... just cases where the victim is a woman who has been harmed by a man.

Where did I say that ? You may well believe that all those things are unacceptable but the fact remains that men, as a collective, don't.

Men as a collective? I am no more responsible for other mens actions than you are. Calling us a collective actually reinforces my point. My wife and I are appalled by the actions of some Brits abroad but we act like ambassadors for our country whilst abroad. We treat other nationalities with respect. We are embarrassed by our compatriots behaviour but we can't stop them doing bad things.
BTW I agree about religion being misogynist but then I'm atheist so I don't feel responsible for that either. :-).

If we could go back to the OP, did she make clear whether the friends she quoted were men, women or both? Does feminism have a fundamental problem 'selling' itself to women generally? Or have I misunderstood Panda's post?

Yes and also, note the spelling. It's unwise to offend cannibals.

What I meant about Stoltenberg possibly feeling freer to comment on male behaviour than a straight man might, was that a gay man wouldn't expect everything he said to be heard with the addition "Maybe this is just a ploy by a heterosexual man". If a man talks publicly along lines of "Men are cruel to women" then he might expect people to think that by (apparently) being kind, he'd be trying to get close to women. And then there's the question of being a "real man"--are men unwilling to step out of line with other men, and say something like "Page 3 of the Sun is demeaning to women, but we men should be embarrassed that so many of us want to see that stuff." Maybe in the "War between the sexes" a homosexual is neutral and can comment on both sides.

MrGin, did you read that article about Gandhi that DrJsCat listed? If we admire Gandhi, we ought to know about all of his opinions. And as the article says (written by a man!) Gandhi's reputation gives a respectable appearance to some very bad things. I suppose Gandhi himself would have said that keeping women down was authentically Indian, and the notion of equal rights was imported and thus a hangover from imperialism. Here is is again:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

Blistory, I don't see a quote of dittany - rather a paraphrasing of what she posted .

I'm not sorry that I responded - I have been keeping away from here on purpose, in order to let the new section get off the ground without regulars like me about. But I won't stand for that sort of thing.

Where did I say that ? You may well believe that all those things are unacceptable but the fact remains that men, as a collective, don't.

Otherwise it wouldn't go on. Quite how you can see me, as one of the most liberal feminists on here, as someone who tars men with the same brush, I don't know.

You were the one who referenced God, quite possibly the figurehead for the whole patrichal society.

So are you saying that all men don't do those things you ask of us blistory because you seem to be tarring all men with the same brush.

Not Gods, responsible human beings who can see that they have an obligation on themselves, their sons, their male friends, their fathers, their uncles etc etc to ensure that sexism is no longer acceptable, that stripclubs are not acceptable, that judging a women by what she wears is acceptable, by teaching your sons that sex requires a woman's active participation and that anything else IS rape. Not Gods, just responsible human beings who play their part in humanity.

I'm glad you are finding this funny.

Are you now saying that it isn't me, but implying that it was dittany who said that?

I don't have a copy of the thread because I don't gather ammunition on MN.

I know perfectly well which poster said that though because I have a working memory. And it wasn't dittany.

Why are you stirring like this MrGin?

it became quite clear that it had nothing to do with feminism but with personalities.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

I think one of the problems is men constantly whining that "not all of us are the same!" No, I'm sure you're not, but it's a lot easier just to say "men shouldn't do X" instead of "So and so and him over there shouldn't do X, but the rest of them can because they're fine".
If you're so worried about being generalised, how about trying to change the men who are like that rather than emphasising how you're not?

So men who say that people should be treated as individuals and not all tarred with the same brush are whining? If anyone were to make such sweeping generalisations about women or black people or anyone else it would be found offensive for criticism of such prejudice to be called whining. After making this criticism of men you then promote us to Gods who can apparently stop evil acts from happening. I only wish I were blessed with such super powers. I can assure you that if I had these powers that women would be a lot safer than they are.

I don't agree.

If you read the thread, that you appear to have a copy of, it became quite clear that it had nothing to do with feminism but with personalities.

Everyone else has made constructive points - you have used a poster as an example which is unfair and goes against the ethos of this section. I thought we had put that issue behind us.