Is feminism all about man hating?

Thank you for the "notes" i will bear them in mind.

As I said, now what?

I agree that there are probably people at the extreme end of feminism who hate men, although I have never met any. What now

IMO that is a much better approach - better tone, if you like - than your original, which was:

Well, yes there may well be feminists who hate men. I've never met one, but I suppose there must be a couple somewhere

I can't remember anything even remotely deletable. The Thought Police are among us again.

It really is bloody stupid. I thought this was supposed to be a grown up forum for grown ups.

Just scrolled back on this thread to remind myself where we started to find it has been eviscerated with umpteen deletions, including one of mine (first ever). What on earth? Why? At whose behest? I don't think there was anything on here that merited deletion. Is this how we roll in FWR these days? Anything but the most anodyne goes ping?

I agree that there are probably people at the extreme end of feminism who hate men, although I have never met any.

What now?

Sorry to butt in so far into a thread, but Shakesville's part of Fem101 entitled How are we supposed to take female bloggers seriously if they post about shoes? is worth a read.

Interesting thread.

And in answer to the OP (though I think you've been told enough times by now!) no, it isn't. When I get that kind of thing I usually say something like Blackcurrants does. "Hmm, indeed. Interestingly although I hang out in feminist websites and forums and go to conference and even have my own feminist group, I've never met anyone who's campaigning for female dominance over men - who are you thinking of?" Because even if some women, somewhere, hate men (and as an earlier poster said - there's someone out there who hates deckchairs, or mountains, or people called Sean), it's totally irrelevant to what feminism is or what it is trying to achieve :)

Whatme, I think dismissing someone's argument because of the tone of their voice is really a poor cover for dismissing their the actual content of their argument. If we believe in what we believe in and the subject comes up, then why do we have to be all happy and smiley about something that is a serious subject?

It isn't only tone, though I do think that is part of it - its also the undefendable policies and beliefs that cause the huge difficulties.

Look at the recent Conway Hall brouhaha, in 2012 to have that sort of stuff going on is..... unhelpful. I have no wish at all to defend transphobia, and no intention of doing so - and it pees me off when people now keep on shoving it in my face as an exmple of how daft Feminists are. IMO that made the Feminist movement as a whole a laughing stock.

As to tone, I'm very aware that there is no pleasing some people, but those are probably the ones you will never persuade. But tone can easily put up the backs of neutrals or even those well disposed to you, so IMO its better to always use a reasonable tone.

Whatme, I think dismissing someone's argument because of the tone of their voice is really a poor cover for dismissing their the actual content of their argument. If we believe in what we believe in and the subject comes up, then why do we have to be all happy and smiley about something that is a serious subject?

The truth is, you could say that you're a feminist with a beatific smile on your face and still get the same negative response.

And like Seeker said plenty of posters have said that yes, they do exist. But to be greeted with the statement in the OP shows that the speaker is focussing on the negative aspect as the majority.

Upon discovering that someone is a Muslim would a sane person say "Well, I don't mind Muslims practising their religion but I don't like the ones that blow up buildings."? Of course they wouldn't because apart from being ridiculously inaccurate, it's also very rude..

Interesting. Whatme, earlier I did do that. I agreed that there were bound to be people at the extreme end of feminism who hated men, and I asked what would happen because I had said that. You then said that I hadn't said it properly, and completely ignored the fact that I had said it at all!

whatme Have you ever heard/read about "The Tone Argument" being discussed? I wonder if that is influencing some of your thoughts about 'the whole movement's credibility.'

This is a good post about it,

"The Tone Argument says: I don?t have to listen to you unless you phrase yourself in just the right way. And of course, the cunning trap of the Tone Argument is that there is no right way. The same statement can be too angry for one person and not angry enough for another; too simplistic, too complicated, too critical, too condescending. Too ?ugly?. (Is there a ?pretty? way to object to the glamorisation of an attempted murderer?) There is no perfect way to critique something."

Essentially, the thinking goes: a lot of people who are saying "well I'd be a feminist if the feminists weren't so shouty" ... are not telling the truth. The dismissers use feminism's legitimate anger over the deaths and mistreatment of women and girls (show me a feeling person who isn't angry about the DV and rape rates!) to dismiss the whole discussion. But if things are couched perfectly nicely, politely, gently, with extra flowers and sugar on top - then the tone is clearly not that important, easy to ignore... and feminism is dismissed a whole other way.

further selections from the post linked to just above:

When discussing the Tone Argument, a comparison that comes up time and time again is one person standing on another?s foot. The person whose foot hurts might yell. The polite response is not, ?Don?t yell at me,? but ?Oh crap, I?m sorry, I?ll get right off your foot.?

The Tone Argument overlaps with existing stereotypes: women are perceived as ?hysterical?, black people are perceived as ?angry?. It?s all been said before and ? trust me ? adds nothing new to the conversation. Addition: these stereotypes really do affect how people are perceived. Tone is so subjective in part because how a person interprets something is affected by their unconscious biases.

What a rude post Worry.

I really don't see where all this "oppression" comes in

You are very lucky then.

^The reason I tend to shy away from talking politics with men is because I can't separate my views on politics from my feminist beliefs, and of course once you out yourself as a feminist then your credibility goes down and the number of eye-rolls go up6

Which brings me back to the original issue here, ie some extreme Feminist beliefs (and Feminists) are plain daft unhelpful, and its a PITA to always start on the back foot in any discussion as you have to deal with this rather than getting on with your own argument.

Fwiw I have always found its is more effective to say "yes, they are extreme, all movements have extremists, but they do not speak for the mainstream" than go for blanket denial, evasion or rudeness.

But it would be so much better if one did not have to start on the back foot all the darn time, it really doesn't help Feminism!

In my more conspiracy theory moments I wonder if the more extreme Feminists are paid by the Patriarchy to deliberately reduce the whole movement's credibility.

Lurking IKWYM. The reason I tend to shy away from talking politics with men is because I can't separate my views on politics from my feminist beliefs, and of course once you out yourself as a feminist then your credibility goes down and the number of eye-rolls go up...

My mother works in a school, so very female dominated environment.

Every day at break they sit down with the paper and discuss all aspects of the news. Including gasp politics!

I have strong political beliefs and my brother is a politician. He's honestly the only feminist man I know, and I still can't discuss politics with him. He gets very aggressive. Aggressive isn't quite the right word but it's a bit 'don't-challenge-me'

I don't discuss any of my feminist views with men, and none of my feminist friends do. Every man we've tried to engage with just takes it very personally and like on here, can get quite condescending.

The main difference is that women actually listen to each other.....[big spoon emoticon]

The men and women I know talk about the same things, but the women talk more intimately on the whole.

I have a 15 year old daughter. There is a guy at work who does a similar job to me and who has become a good friend. He has two daughters, now grown up. I find him a useful sounding board for the frequent 'challenges' that my daughter is currently setting me .

So it isn't all football and cars, though there is a place for that too.

UniDad. Love the honesty! Tbh after a few me and my friends are about as intellectual as a bunch of monkeys. Monkeys talking about sex that is!

Obviously I can't speak for every all-male group, but when me and my friends get together we normally end up talking bollocks.

Figuratively, not literally I hasten to add.

The problem is that none of us can possibly know what the OS talk about when they're in single sex groups because the fact of our presence changes the group dynamic. Sex change anyone? In the interests of feminist research!

I'm probably more likely to chat politics with my female friends but will close up when men are around because it can tend to become a competition about who knows the most. Men have more experience in adversarial conversation and enjoy paying devil's advocate and so it's best just to bow out. I realise that's a huge generalization but it's happened enough times for me to be wary of it.

Mathanxiety "is sport superior to fashion?" you are spot on. Why should we feel the urge to hide our interest in our children, in fashion, and yes EMBROIDERY is awesome!! Why are topics like sport and politics intrinsically more important? Hmmm, lemme think....

I know it's a radical thought but, whilst some men obviously feel unable to do so, it is entirely possible for women to be interested and excel in a broad range of topics. (Obviously to do with the superior communication between both cerebral hemispheres, given to us courtesy of the neuro-sexists )

I totally agree with you mathanxiety.

I have a busy social calendar this coming week, I might do a wee experiment and linger in corners listening to what each gender actually talks about.

I also think it's complete balls that men don't talk about clothing or shoes or golf gear, or phones, music systems and other techie toy stuff like that.

It's the basic assumption that what men talk about, or are assumed to talk about, must be superior to what women might allegedly like to talk about, is superior almost by definition, that gets my goat. Is sport superior to fashion?

at this Jane Austen vision of the men the dining room discussing politics and the events of the day, the women in the drawing room talking about embroidery and children

Replace drawing room with kitchen and its pretty bang on, unfortunately.

Whatmeworry, I think it's absolute balls that women don't talk about politics and art and stuff. Maybe they're just not so desperate to show off what they know as men are. Or maybe you give off the impression that you think they're a bit thick so they don't want to chat with you

Of course they do, I said men are "more likely to", in an office setting. That is my experience, and I think its because women are less confident to express opinions.