Rebutting the Straw Men/Owning up when "it's a fair cop, guv.

Ah I see this thread has become self congratulatory already.

Oh, on that note I spelled elequoently wrong didn't I? I think that balances out the use of paradigm runs off to the dictionary for both

Oops, someone used the word 'paradigm' on FWR. There'll be a klaxon going off now to highlight the fact someone on here is being too intellectual.

Yes, that there is no "high command" is pretty much what I was trying to say but more elequoently!

Well there is no central feminist high command, but I take your point. I do wish people would feel being human and having ideas was sufficient to express themselves.

I recall a fascinating theme across several threads and posts that examined how personal experiences are so often dismissed and invalidated in the face of so called facts and statistics.

Quite aside from the fact that they are biased on what we choose to record, how we record then and how we choose to present that data.

It is depressingly easy to marginalise/dismiss real pressing issues this way. Not that in suggesting for a moment we reject things like science and statistics. However far too many people trot out this stuff without realising how it unquestioningly conforms to the dominant social paradigm.

I lurk a lot and rarely post on FWR but so many of the 'I'm not a feminist' reasons that I've seen come down to a mentality that think feminists are a club with rules and if you're not a 'good enough' feminist then you can't claim to be one and wear the badge.

I have on occasions posted on feminism topics and been told by a poster that I can't be a feminist because e.g. I'm not supporting x because she's a woman vs. a man and she's oppressed because she's a woman so therefore entitled to do whatever she feels she must, but I am confident enough in my beliefs to think that my version of feminism and theirs is different but mine is equally valid. I could see if would be offputting if you were just beginning to dip your toe into debating it though.

I miss Buffy too, I liked reading her posts.

We don't hold men to 100% consistency with one another, why should feminism? After all it is a mode of thinking that takes into account 50% of the world population.

It's going to be filled with smart, stupid, kind and unkind people, same as any other human demographic. Aside from perhaps viewing things from a female perspective everything else is up for grabs.

I don't agree with every feminist analysis, nor do I share the life experience of women (I am a man). However thanks to feminism we enjoy a society that's just that little bit fairer, for a few more people.

There is no reason that things can't be made better still. However things can't if the basic questions aren't asked, and problem areas identified. Now what qualifies as a right answer or genuine problem may differ from person to person, man to woman or even woman to woman. I think that's ok too.

I remember a thread came up recently about race re: feminism which was very enlightening. I've seen a lot of threads recently where FWR (and its regulars) have been lambasted, but this is a passionate place filled with people who care very deeply it is going to be somewhere where ideas clash sometimes explosively so, but that isn't a statement on feminism or even women for that matter. It is simply what it is to be human.

I've been reading and posting for a little while now, but despite the rep I have also found it a friendly space, a supportive place and a protective one.

Heavens I posted (as a man) about experiences where one woman in my life had taken advantage of me, I got sensitivity and compassion over it. Not "I am a man so must therefore be in the wrong". So I'm afraid I cannot accept the narrative that feminism (or FWR for that matter) is somehow man hating.

On that note I would like to say I miss Buffy.

I fear I'm walking into the lion's den a bit with this one, but I am genuinely interested.

I have always thought that males were more pre-disposed (not sure about that hyphen) to be more aggressive than females due to testosterone and other biological reasons. Is this a myth then? Or an unknown?

It always struck me as a bit odd because in a lot of species the females are actually more aggressive.

I think the problem with feminism from my perspective is, as a theory, it makes sweeping generalisations. Anything that doesn't fit with the feminist worldview seems to be dismissed as false consciousness, at least in the few papers I've read ok, I realise I'm making a sweeping generalisation myself

The problem with most 'isms' I think is that once you start seeing things from one perspective you tend to try and make things fit that perspective, IYKWIM.

I'd be interested to hear from those who do identify as feminists whether they think feminism is having/has had an identity crisis, and if so, why?

Yes, male aggression is more likely to be excused with an affectionate "boys will be boys".

I know there are women boxers. My point is that society tends to be more squeamish about the idea of two women knocking lumps out of each other than of two men.

How much of that is because I know it would be morally and legally wrong and how much is because women simply aren't allowed to use violence ?

Neither are men.

There are women boxers - I dislike them as much as I dislike male boxing.

IMO a strawman argument is when someone assigns to you an opinion so ridiculous that no sane person would espouse it, then takes you down based on that argument.

It's also very derailing.

For example at a party one guy, upon finding out from the host that I was a feminist, proceeded to tell me that feminists hated men and believed that women should be given special treatment over men.

I spent all evening trying to reassure him that this wasn't the case (hey I was a newbie then!) and that feminists liked men and just wanted equal opportunities before I realised that I was wasting my time.

I find the best way to deal with such people now is to give them a Paddington bear stare and say "yup, that's EXACTLY what I said!"

Which I probably picked up from someone here

Found it
psychcentral.com/news/archives/2004-04/uom-ycs041204.html

It's not the reseach pp referred to, but one that I was aware of. I will keep looking for the other research too

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

I disagree about men being allowed to use violence. Yes, in a general sense about thumping another man on the street but as a society, we allow and promote the use of violence as a means of statecraft and we largely ask men to be the tools of violence.

We also allow men physical outlets like boxing and generally frown upon women doing so.

We also can't deny that there is status and credibility to be gained amongst some groups of young men by proving that they can hold their own physically amongst their peers so whilst it might be punished under the legal system, it brings it's own reward with street credibility.

I do think that it's one of the major ways in which patriarchy harms men quite significantly.

LEM: So if i argued vehemently that Father Christmas was real? that would be a straw man?

Not quite. If you told a Christian 'but you beleive in Father Christmas!' And then argued vehementently about their believing in Father Christmas being why you cannot call yourself a christian, that would be a straw man. You arguing against a belief they dont hold, because your (mis)understanding of the expectations of the group they belong to.

saying you wouldnt call yourself a Christian because you dont believe in Father Christmas is like some people who argue they can't/won't call themselves feminist because of the mistaken idea that (something they have heard referenced in popular media that is a very twisted version of what that one famous feminist sort of wrote once.) is an absolute required belief.

Like Christianity (and other organised religions), feminism comes in many gradiations, and has many individuals who spout off their own opinion in ways that others can mistake for a required or expected belief. There are many Christian faiths, and many individuals who don't necessarily exactly accept the definition given by the church they attend.

In the US, i have been known to tell people, who dont otherwise trust FOX news, that if they are not feminists because of something FOX says feminists are or do, then they should seriously rethink their position.

I don't think violence is biologically ( well I don't think anything is 100% nature or nurture but it's a scale). I think most people have a temper/ violent tendencies to some degree but different people are better at dealing with them. Dealing whth those feelings is a learned behaviour IMO.
Blistory- as I man I know that men are simply not allowed to use violence either.

Violence is interesting, isn't it ?

I wonder if people would be shocked to find out just how often I clench my fists and want to pummel someone or to raise my voice and yell at someone and yet I've never hit someone or really shouted. How much of that is because I know it would be morally and legally wrong and how much is because women simply aren't allowed to use violence ?

I don't think I'm a particularly angry woman but feeling violent isn't unfamiliar whereas acting violent is generally outwith my experience.

And that system was probably originally established by aristocratic men who thought the poor man an inferior creature at the mercy of his impulses!

No one is let off the hook unless their impulse control is sufficiently poor to be an excuse and then the sentencing may be of a different nature (attending rehab for example)

Yops, I disagree. Our legal structure is set up on the basis that we are "civilised" beings who can control our impulses to violence, theft, anti social behaviour like shouting in the street etc.

Re the gendered brain - I've begun to wonder whether finding out that me's behaviour is biologically induced would cause a big problem for feminism. If gendered violence is caused by socialisation there is a way out, and also an onus on men to sort themselves out. Finding out that a greater tendency to violence is part of a biological make-up (I'm thinking hormones, more than just structure), sort of let's men off the hook. A bit, anyway.

No, domino.

Strawperson surely ?

Stannis there may well be differences but the question is how much impact do those differences have?

I've not heard of this piece of research you mentioned. It could as you say point to a gendered brain, or that gendering of males and females happens in other higher functioning animals or mean nothing at all since our brains are not their brains.

It's all very interesting

Also if we are making confessions my dd sleeps with her pink jewellery box and my ds declared that cats were for girls so he wanted a dog.

Oh my boys do that too!

Like I said, I'm not close minded to the possibility. I also know that "brain difference" has been used to justify some fairly shitty things in the past eg treatment of black people vs white (not saying you are doing this of course!)