Can I talk about men ?

Coffee, my post quoting you was not to mock or ridicule. I am sorry if it read that way.

My point was that your situation - that of being surrounded my stable, non-raping, non-violent men - is remarkably common, even amongst the regulars on FWR. And yet once we get outside this little bubble, these men morph into a violent, oppressive, dangerous mass.

There are a lot of FWR regulars who will tell you that their male partners are generally decent, supportive men who treat women as equals, who see inequality in our society, and who are aware that some things in society favour men. You'd have to be blind not to see that, frankly. You will get outliers in any group, but I believe that most men want a fairer, more equal society. Attitudes will change between generations, but I believe my children's generation is generally more tolerant and inclusive, and less inclined to prejudice that the one before it, as we were when compared to our parents.

Very true Blistory. The internet's a poor means of communication. But, for all that, even in a combative exchange, there is value to be had.

Night.

It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners and give us a good reason why women should withdraw from the workplace to be treated like that. Women need economic independence because the other work we do has no value at all.

"Go and have yourself a little read...." Genius comment ApocalypseNow! The ability to take one statement and then extend it into something entirely else before roundly abusing the poster is something I was just talking about, so thank you for so ably demonstrating it.

So many things. Apparently I'm suggesting women shouldn't enter the workplace... Many men are contemptuous of their wives... Childcare has no value... seriously, are you actually an MRA pretending?

It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners and give us a good reason why women should withdraw from the workplace to be treated like that. Women need economic independence because the other work we do has no value at all.

almost every man (note i say almost) benefits indirectly from the privilege that comes, in huge part, from the violence of other men. that is not necessarily the minority (i hope, i don't know for sure) that is actually currently perpetrating that violence, but the violence of centuries that has socialised women into positions of fear and oppression. that fear doesn't have to be raw, like being trapped by a man with a knife, but that underlying awareness that women don't know which men around them may be violent, what may trigger that violence, and they will often alter their behaviour accordingly to minimise any risk that they may be a target, whilst also knowing that there may be nothing they can do. this is not explicit stuff - this is socialised, instilled from an early age. men who are not violent and would not even consider being so probably wouldn't even notice that alteration, but many will benefit as a result as their voices are better heard, their needs more easily met and their share of resources greater. therefore there are many men who have a stake in the status quo being maintained, as it benefits them so greatly, and you see their reluctance to cede privilege when they buy into myths about rape, dv, pay and status gaps in the workplace, etc

It's interesting that it's always people that criticize the prevailing view on FWR that are accused of being rude, dismissive and seeking to silence. Strangely, when it's the other way around it's called 'not suffering fools gladly' or similar.

You are most probably right. However, as someone that first addressed me by paraphrasing my posts into a unrepresentative position in order to mock it, it could be that you're part of the combative equation?

Quite happy, however, to apologise for being a little feisty, step back, read your posts again and start afresh.

My response to your OP is, yes, I think that feminism can have harmful effects on men. Namely:

• It sometimes reduces a whole bunch of diverse and generally blameless people into a homogenous class represented by its worst examples.
• It suggests any male member of society is responsible for those worst examples. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." This responsibility is not given to women (because feminists are women and so, as a class, they are doing enough already)
• It minimises problems suffered by individual men when women's problems (as a class) are greater in number.
• It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.

As I've said before, one needs to look at these in context. Feminism on the whole is an undeniably good thing. Many of its proponents, however, are so hung up on what happens on a class level that the more complex dynamics beneath that are over-looked. Additionally, the undeniably foul abuse that MRAs etc can inflict has led to a seige mentality where all criticism is dismissed. As I said, it's an impossibility that there won't be theories that are wrong, or unintended negative consequences.

Perhaps I've lost track of what you were asking; I'm just trying to provide my answer. I'm trying to explain why I think feminism can be construed as man-hating by someone not positively engaged in feminist theory. I hestitate to quote you now, but you said that feminism was just asking men to be better. Do you not see how this implies that every man, if not the actual perpetrator of violence and discrimination, is somehow responsible for it in a way that female members of society aren't?

'Bus drivers spit at passing cyclists' does not equal 'All bus drivers are disgusting spitters targeting cyclists'.
It may be a useful statement to plan an anti-spitting campaign.

Generalisations are always dangerous, but sometimes useful and IMO have their place is many context: planning of services, sociological analysis, etc.
They rarely work when extrapolated to individuals.

No jacket.. I don't get your point.

For what it's worth, I am never I'm this section of mumsnet. It came up on Most Active and I was intrigued.

You would be horrified of my situation. SAHM and very traditional roles here. So I'm not referring to my father, husband or brother from the perspective of a feminist. Just as a woman.

It's not addressing men 'as a class' per se. It's taking something that is a minority behaviour within that class and then using it.

Bus drivers spit out the window at passing cyclists. Oh, that's class analysis, so it's fine.

For men who won't benefit, I'm sorry but I just can't shed any tears for someone who has had all the advantages and is now being asked simply to share them.

Yes, it was glib, but I was responding to your negative paraphrasing of my post and it was entirely intended.

But yes, you have said you don't give a shit. I've copied your position above. If you look at that sentence, you separate out individuals and then refer to a whole class. For instance, let's say that those individuals are boys that education are failing or men subject to dv. You won't shed tears for those, because - as a class - men have "all the advantages". This happens. Those boys and those men have their experiences minimised. Google a news article about men subject to dv and somewhere in there you'll often find a feminist saying "yes, but on the whole this affects women more..."

But most of us would object if somebody said "teenage mothers as a class do [bad thing]" and say but you can't lump them all in together, make assumptions, be prejudiced....
I suppose I feel my challenges are to the system, not to men as a class. The system benefits men, but I'm one of those who also believes that in other ways it harms men too (in lesser ways than women obviously).
I admit I know very little directly about domestic violence etc and my feminism has mainly been around women and careers in western countries but I feel the culprit is societal structures and that men range from in denial to complicit but still I see the oppressor as the system rather than "men" (some women are complicit, even knowingly so).

Well, we class all sorts of parts of society as a 'class', don't we: there's 'class' itself, there's 'teenaged mothers' or 'bus drivers' or 'OAPs'.
I don't see why 'men' should be any different as far as sociological analysis goes?

If men as a class is wrong, then how can feminists describe patterns of behaviour that need to be challenged? Some things are too common, others are too built into the system, to ignore. If we can't describe them or hint at who the perpetrators may be, we're not actually going to be able to tackle it. Men as a class may have to just deal with that.

Literally.

Sorry Petula It's a perfectly fair question. Unfortunately I am required to go and watch Dr Who now - but I'm not ducking out of it and will come back.

I have a huge issue with the whole "men as a class" thing.
I hate the patriarcical system but I don't feel anything about "men as a class" because I think that is prejudice.
In relation to the "men as a class" kill women, oppress women, benefit from the patriarical system I always find myself thinking of my own situation as a white Western European. Yes I benefit from racism and colonialism but I don't believe I deserve to be hated for that even "as a class" rather than as an individual.
So I actually on a personal basis reject the "men as a class" terminology.

i don't disagree with you on many of those points, i have my own criticisms of aspects of feminism and of individual feminists. my question was a genuine one, i'm not sure why you interpreted it otherwise - you had made some interesting points and i wanted to know how/if you felt these problems you had outlined could be resolved

I think you missed my little parody Blistory

Does the validity of a problem's identification rely upon the same person coming up with a solution Petula?

The OP was asking if people thought feminism harmed men (prior to going to to explain that she didn't really give a shit if it did) and query the idea of feminists being perceived as being man-haters.

To clarify, no I don't really think feminism does harm men and, when you consider the benefits that feminism brings, some marginal negative consequences can be excused. I have answered that I can understand why some people perceive feminists as man-hating and that those people are not exclusively MRAs (or historical equivalents). You can dismiss my opinion if you wish. You can also dismiss the opinion of everyone that dare suggest a negative perspective or consequence of feminism. Many feminists do do this, which I think is curious. Do we really think that there can be no flies in the ointment at all? Do we think positive change can be affected in society and there can't possibly be any adverse side-effects? This is a strange notion to me. I see no problem with believing that feminism is a great and positive force for good in the world whilst concurrently acknowledging that there may be things within the movement that aren't perfect or have (comparatively minor) negative consequences on society.