Feminists hate men

You get annoyed because it's annoying!

Are the men (?) saying this to you genuinely believing what they say, or are they being devil's avocados?

Oh, and Benedict Cumberbatch wore one of those "This is what a feminist looks like" Tshirts (as did a bunch of other men who I CBA to google). Does he hate men?

OP, some more thoughts...

Which part of women getting the vote was about hating men? Which part of ending page 3 was about hating men? What about shared parental leave - was that about hating men? If 30% of heads of FTSE companies are women, is that man hating personified? How are abortion rights about man hating? I didn't lose my job on marriage AND my salary was considered for our mortgage - yep, lots of male loathery there.

In short, which particular feminist target or achievement is due to hate? Can they list them?

I also genuinely believe feminism benefits men and occasionally answer that way if I sense the questioner is looking for a proper conversation, rather than dismissing me/women/feminism through the medium of tired stereotypes.

Cheers Felascloak, I might just do that.

I hate misogyny, male privilege, and the patriarchy. Most/ many men either do not acknowledge the existence of those or they knowingly profit from the status quo and I find it quite hard not to hate them for that.

Do young people still say "whatever" ?

It seems a more than adequate response to "femininists hate men". It's not as if you will change such an opinion.

Girl, sorry to hear that.

basil I love you, I wish you'd posted this on the starting to hate men thread:

What do men do when they hate women? They cat call us, they threaten us, they inflict violence on us, they rape us, they murder us. What do women who hate men do? They ignore them. So fucking fuckity what? Go away and solve men's hatred of women and then I'll have another think about feminists who hate men.

Amazing!

"Without an economic or a moral analysis you will not be able to resolve these arguments purely through recourse to liberal nostrums of individual choice, identity and freedom."

Haha! Case in point not responding to any of the actual posts, just pontificating at random!

Strident is a word used widely in a derisory sense about women/feminists, John. Like hysterical.

The thread wasn't about "whether feminists were legitimate to hate men", John. It was about how to respond to such random accusations. It was a request for practical help.

If you read and respond to the posts that are actually there (see the above analysis of your response to Buffy), then you will get on much better.

Tatty bye.

Girlwithalionheart said she welcomed my contributions to the thread. I don't think feminist analysis is simplistic, I think some of it is.

I personally do not understand how you can reasonably answer the question of whether feminists are legitimate to hate men without deconstructing some liberal asumptions. Well you can - but to what point? What sort of answer will you get? Yes? No? Sometimes? Maybe? If you're just looking at this through the lens of liberal identity politics (which is what I'm critical of, not feminism at all really) then you'll just go round in circles. If gender is a construct then it has to be more positively reconstructed, and that can only happen in a new economic paradigm.

I'm not a Marxist per se but I do think power does generally come down to economics. And if people do just see the world in terms of individual identities rather than economic forces then there will be these unresolvable arguments about whether we should hate all men or some men or see men as just social constructs; or, indeed, whether we should be wary of all Muslims or just radical Muslims. At present, we have people in a rampant laissez faire economy with no sense of identity available to them other than that of gender or ethno-nationalism. But if men and women (or indeed Muslims and non-Muslims) are working together in factories or businesses or whatever, all paid the same decent wage, all unionised and fully pensioned and with a place in the world, with equal numbers of men and women at the top, then you will still have problems but considerably fewer. You can't, for instance, have parity of pay without a properly regulated labour market in which principles of equality for ALL are enshrined. But if you have a completely demoralised economy (as we do) , predicated on nothing but self-interest and competition (along with the mass objectification of women and an out of control sex industry) then feminism is fucked, multiculturalism is fucked, everything progressive is fucked. And you do meet some feminists (not you guys) who want equality to magically appear just from deconstructing novels and making 'feminist porn' and writing blogs about 'slutwalks' - and some, thinking state power is patriatchal, vote for governments who are ideologically opposed to equality in any form.

So that's my piece. I'll end it there. Without an economic or a moral analysis you will not be able to resolve these arguments purely through recourse to liberal nostrums of individual choice, identity and freedom.

Toodle pip.

John- I don't think there are any flaws in your arguments. I mostly agree with you. It's just....we've done that bit. We know about individual/class. It's just taken as read. We've been talking and thinking about this stuff for ages. I genuinely don't understand why you feel the need to explain it to me.

I'll bite John

Buffy posts -

^So if I were to appear in a group of people discussing how racism affects them, and ask them to stop doing that and acknowledge that there are indeed exceptions, not all white people are twats, etc - which I would not! But if I did - then I would have just made the conversation all about my feelings, which while uncomfortable aren't likely to cause me material problems, and stopped them from talking about the issue that's affecting their lives. Which is quite probably causing them material problems.

This is why, when people appear in feminist discussions to point out - however helpfully - that exceptions exist... well, we know they do. But the exceptions aren't the ones causing the problems are they, so why would we want to give loads of time and attention to reassuring them that we recognise their exceptionality? It's not hatred, it's just not giving loads of positive attention to men who might feel that loads of positive attention is their due. ^

and you respond with -

Buffy it does make sense. As the discussion concerned the issue of feminists hating men it seemed worthwhile to make a point about kyriarchy and that power relations are not simply binary - but kind of multi-binary. Globally men have more power, but a man living on the streets has less power than Beyonce. I know this point is almost too obvious to make, but the point stands that you can't reasonably tell that specific man to 'check his privilege' whereas you certainly could reasonably say that to, I dunno, Hugh Heffner. Or thinking about it, you could tell the homeless man to check his privilege if he were assaulting other homeless women, but presuming that he isn't he has less aggregate power than many women privileged by socioeconomic background.

It's like you didn't even read her post. She addressed this. Clearly and articulately. You started the post by telling her she was wrong and then didn't add anything, didn't challenge her point. You simply reaffirmed the point she already addressed as if you were imparting some wisdom.

john

Just wondering if you've noticed how the OP has moved from its original discussion and has now become a discussion with your views on something else being discussed?

As opposed to the actual OP?

(Ironically this post reinforces that)

Fair enough Matilida. What flaws are there in my arguments? Or, as you say, you can just ignore them

You remind me of a certain type of undergraduate I used to teach - the sort who was not nearly as clever as he thought he was and felt he could shore up the fundamental flaw in step one of his argument by using increasingly long words and "appeals to authority" in the form of name dropping (and misunderstanding) important philosophers and philosophical positions.

The difference was I was paid to wade through their shit and attempt to show them the error of their ways. I am not paid to go through your shit, and am thus now at liberty to ignore your posts (does happy dance).

Buffy, how can I not explain an argument? Would you rather I left it unexplained? And what's wrong with 'strident'?

Surely you make a point and then substantiate it? It has nothing to do with whether other people require an explanation or not; it's purely because without a substantive argument a point is a non-point.

And if you think my points are intellectually lacking then fair enough. Maybe you could explain what is intellectually lacking about them?

"I noticed that Lass stridently accused Buffy of being hypocritical for saying she would have mixed feelings if her son committed rape - and this was tolerated. So what am I saying that's worse?"

It was not. I pointed out Lass was making the wrong comparison.

And consider whether using the word strident on a feminist board is a good idea, hmm?

It seems that people do not like me questioning their assumptions about the world and you would rather it was just occupied by people who shared them. Well, just say that then. Just say at the beginning of each discussion: 'if you want an intellectual debate you're not welcome'.

Do you really think what you are doing is 'intellectual debate'?