DH believes women have equality and feminism is no longer needed

Thanks for not taking the fact that I mentioned a short lived urge to be sarcastic, the wrong way ;)
I didn't mean it rudely or as unfriendly and I'm glad I didn't post a sarky reply because it probably wouldn't have been very fair. I can see that you are being sincere and it isn't very helpful to reply with sarcasm.

I really hope you read up (and post here) on the issues that you are interested in, and I repeat my suggestion that it is more fruitful for a woman to explore feminist issues with other women/people who really care/people who are invested/etc than to find oneself in debate with men. Not that discussing women's issues with men is entirely pointless but it has an entirely different dynamic and tends to be adverserial and potentially hurtful. Not always, of course, but often.

There are loads of great threads on here and lots of brilliant writing on the internet. If you do a search you will also come across lots of excellent book recommendations (or you could start a thread on the subject as we haven't had one for a while).

Shit, I hope I haven't killed the good thread by commenting about how I like it! Facepalm.

Thanks for the interesting thread everyone. My poor DH is browbeaten well versed in the politics of feminism. It's my father that I need to step away from. We love to debate stuff but he's pig ignorant of 'womens issues'. It's very frustrating so I can totally understand your point of view OP. By arguing back with you, even just as part of a fun discussion, is denying reality. WTF is that about? With my father, i'm sure it is about protecting male privilege. It sounds like your DH is coming to terms with his. It's not an easy thing to do actually. I think I went through some similar kind of denial/resistance then epiphany about sexism myself!

I know we've moved on from the devil's advocate thing slightly, but I'm just taking the time to follow links from the thread now and wanted to say, thanks to TerrariaMum.

I really like this comment from the Shakesville one;

"I have a lot of feelings about devil's advocate bullshit. It's so cowardly - a way of expressing an unpopular, so-called "politically incorrect" position without really owning it; arguing for something that you know deep down is some bigoted, mean-spirited nonsense but which you also kind of believe without admitting you believe it. And somehow simultaneously you manage to make yourself look brave for taking on the "unpopular" belief, for "daring" to say those things, as well as positioning yourself as some kind of masterfully rational, objective debater who's obviously superior because they can argue both sides of the debate. "Oh, but I'm just trying to HELP you refine your argument! I don't REALLY believe those things! I've just decided to appoint myself your debate coach and professor because obviously that is my right as a Rational Being!"

How nice for you that you can approach misogyny, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. with such detachment. How nice for you that you can deal with those things as if they don't affect your day to day reality, as if they don't hurt you in real, tangible, painful ways, as if they aren't personal. The rest of us cannot be objective or detached because it is personal and it does hurt, and you have the temerity to suggest that this makes our arguments weaker and means you can patronize and dismiss us. Fuck that shit."

In response to my comment, someone else pointed out that you rarely see it happening the other way around - the marginalized person "playing devil's advocate" with the privileged person. Which, yeah, that really ought to give the devil's advocates of the world pause. It's just such a deeply dishonest way of engaging with another person and their experiences.

Isn't there a difference between feminism and feminist theory? It is my understanding that although both inform upon the other one can take issue with the theory, but be fully committed to the objectives of feminism itself?

As a caveat to above my studies into feminist theory do reveal things worth challenging, but considering the enormity of the subject, and the fact it is a pillar towards a fairer society I have placed it in the same category as democracy in that as a society we gain far more from its presence and we would lose from its absence.

Sexism is at the very heart of our constitution. Despite the sex Discrimination legislation we are ruled by a parliament in which access to the unelected house of lords is barred to women as either a bishop or a hereditary peer

silicone thankyou so much for this eye-opener. Literally have never thought of this before as an issue with the house of lords

Beachcomber, surely the heart of a political process is debate? Changing people's minds by pointing out what is wrong and giving clear and reasoned arguments about what solutions are available to correct the problems is far more effective than stamping your feet and shouting "It's not fair!"

OK. I typed out several slightly sarcastic replies to this and deleted them. This comment rather annoyed me, Kirk.

I repeat feminism is a political movement. It is not a debate, it is not an intellectual subject for study, it is not academic and it's purpose is not to entertain. It's purpose is to protest against a system of social organisation which is deeply unfair to girls and women, and which causes harm to girls and women, in order to advantage boys and men.

TBH I don't really see the purpose 'debate' has in feminism. Discussion, consciouness raising, exploration, self-discovery, sharing of experiences, organising and working together; yes. 'Debate'; not so much. (Which doesn't go to say that I think everybody agrees or should agree on all the tenets and aims of the feminist movement.)

But perhaps you and I do not mean the same thing by the word.

A lot of political activism involves stamping your feet and shouting 'It's not fair'. Demonstrations, marches, rallys, sit-ins, protests, petitions, etc. All of these are people joining together as a group to be heard saying that something is not fair. Don't knock it - it is one of the few means available for you to protest when you are excluded from the political process (as women and feminism traditionally are).

His issue with Feminism seems to be method, rather than the end aim. He feels there is a way of bringing women's rights and opportunities up to those of men's without attacking men along the way.

Feminists hear this a lot from men. Male dominance and male violence are the problem women face - how are we supposed to challenge these (serious human rights issues) without hurting the poor men's feelings and making them feel attacked? Men as a class harm women as a class. If they don't want to feel attacked by feminism perhaps they should stop.

Not necessarily a difference, Art, just varying the language, also since I don't know what was meant by "attacking " I didn't want to reuse the word.

I think there are a lot of men and women who believe that equality has broadly been achieved in the UK. I don't think that the OP's husband is alone in his views, and it isn't a view confined to the oppressing class.

I'd say it would depend on how Stonewall and the ANC went about their bolshiness, to be honest. Anyway, what is the difference between being bolshie and attacking?

Which things does he feel that feminism does which "attack" men?

Does he see any parallels between feminism not being bolshie with men and, say, Stonewall not being bolshie with straight people or the ANC not being bolshie with FW De Klerk?

Another example of contemporary data showing we (well Americans I think in this instance) don't have the same expectations of boys and girls:
www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/google-tell-me-is-my-son-a-genius.html?_r=3

He also doesn't believe in "The Patriarchy" or that we have a problem with a rape culture

Meet Dick Black: Virginia’s pro-spousal rape GOP Congressional candidate!

I know it is America, but his views are widely held. I can't believe that anyone can say there isn't a problem with rape culture.

DH uses this to play with the wankers by leading them on before informing them he's a big beardy chap, not the petite female he is playing...

And exactly what does 'leading them on' entail? Playing the game? Does he enjoy the male attention? Would he enjoy it in real life? When he can't kick ass on a MMO game?

BuffyI think we have to be careful about our own class/cultural privilege too. As the daughter of an Oxbridge academic, I agree that I stood a better chance of getting into Oxbridge than DH, whose parents left school at 16. This acknowledgement will also help us in our feminism - as an Oxbridge educated, middle-class woman, I draw more privilege than many other women. Still, I'd rather have DH's privilege than mine - at least now I have my degree. Not sure I would have wanted to start where he started, though...

Which brings me to Rawls (I love Rawls) - this argument always come down to justice. If you were designing a system and then getting a place in it assigned at random, would you choose this one or something fairer? Let the devil's advocates stick THAT in their pipes and smoke it!