Feminists hate men

Isn't the whole of a discussion forum that people don't agree - providing they're not being personal or abusive? I just don't get it??? Why would you want everyone to agree with you? Anyway, I did ask earlier if my views were welcome and was told they were. Well, evidently they're not. Fair enough. I won't comment in any gender based Mumsnet section again because no matter how careful I try to be to express myself without offending anyone I inariably do offend people - which is truly not my wish. Maybe that is due to some problem with me that I'm oblivious to, but as I say I've never experienced anything like this before. No hard feelings, just confusion. J.

Scallopsgreat. I am telling people what I think about gemdered power relations as I see them. We all have our points of view and we all in a sense think we know best. We all have opinions that we believe are correct and would be gratified if others shared them. What else do you expect? Please go ahead and disagree with the CONTENT of any of my comments: I welcome such disagreements. But it is not reasonable to attack me for the fact that I have put across a view that I believe to be correct. Because that is what you are doing; that is what Buffy is doing and that is what everyone is doing.

I have been respectful. I've acknowledged agreement with certain points people have made while expressing reservations about others. So what? Am I forbidden from doing that? Can you not deal with people having a nuanced difference of opinion?

I do seem to be singled out here and I don't know why. 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 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'.

Not really impressed. This is an unwelcoming place where debate is discouraged and conformity insisted upon. And people are rude and just not very pleasant.

My attitude nowadays to that question is

a) most don't

b) of those who do, so fucking what? 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.

"Because hating men isn't an actual feminist position (radical or otherwise), it's just a derailing tactic, an accusation thrown at feminists which we then waste time trying to refute."

Yy to that!

And OP sorry for the derail. Fwiw I pretty much agree with everything Jacquetta said and SomeDyke's post above.

It's probably worth saying that when you become a feminist you don't suddenly become responsible for every woman's behaviour, whether they declare themselves a feminist or not. Feminism is not responsible for abusive women's behaviour. Feminism isn't abusive.

"Men will accuse women of hating them when/if women do not cater to their every whim. "

Because hating men isn't an actual feminist position (radical or otherwise), it's just a derailing tactic, an accusation thrown at feminists which we then waste time trying to refute.

And this link (thanks to Jessica Valenti) shows just how far back it goes:

thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/12/28/where-do-negative-stereotypes-about-feminists-come-from/

Perhaps that would be a better answer, that it is common misrepresentation of any group of women who dare demand change.

It doesn't surprise me that you find my posts aggressive and rude, John. They are rude. I'm sure you feel I'm being aggressive as a result.

I feel your posts are patronising, rude and passive aggressive. So there you go. You insist on on every thread you are on telling us how we should argue (and of course where we are going wrong with that), what the problem with feminism is and what we should be focused on. Every thread becomes about you. You talk over women. You don't listen and feel you know best. That is incredibly rude and the fact you have the gall call me rude without any self-reflection about how your posts come across, shows how little you care about your own behaviour on these threads. What I said to you was no worse than what you have written time and time again.

"And yes, as a socialist I have been taking issue with certain tenets of socialism on another thread. No political viewpoint should be sacrosanct dogma." And there is a case in point. That isn't what I asked. But you answered it as if all I was asking was 'do you argue with Socialists'.

But you know what you can have this thread back and people can continue to try and engage you in a discussion of your choosing, if they want to waste their have the energy.

And yes that was me being passive aggressive. And a bit angry. Just so we're clear.

I think it's useful to point out that hating men is different from not wanting to prioritise men's needs and feelings when working towards the liberation of women.

Men will accuse women of hating them when/if women do not cater to their every whim.
Pointing out the irrationality of this won't help much, I'm afraid. After all, any rational human being would not needs this pointed out to them in the first place.

What do I think should be done about socioeconomic and gender equality?

State redistribution of wealth from the top 30% of earners into the creation of programmes of mass, secure, meaningful and ethical employment for all men and women.

The Nordic model of prostitution.

The greatest possible regulation of - and limitation of access to - the porn industry possible.

Life imprisonment for rape.

John

If feminists don't focus their efforts on women, who will?

Anyway, once again, we've drifted a long way from the OP's original request, which was what to say in response to a claim that feminists hate men.

As far as the runner up in the Tory leadership contest is concerned, when she said it, I think it's very worrying that someone so fundamentally mistaken about a political movement and its tenets is a cabinet minister...

OP, tell them they've got the understanding of Andrea Leadsom

Oh. So just a bit of whataboutery. That's fine. We all do it sometimes. It helps sometimes if we feel our feet are being held a bit too close to the fire.

JohnJ80

Buffy addressed this point in her post. Honestly I am baffled as to why you felt the need to make a point which had been made and addressed in the post you were responding to.

Jacquetta: That seems very simplistic tbh.

It might be a good idea to do it as a "to anyone who doesn't know about this" or something like that. Because it did look a lot as if you were explaining one of the fundamentals of feminism to Buffy. What with you addressing her by name and all.............Anyway. Moving on. What do you think feminists should be doing about the inequality of privilege between Hugh Hefner and a homeless black man?

Beryrand: Nothing - or donate to a homeless charity if you want. I'm just making a theoretical point about the multifarious ways power manifests in a patriarchal society. Martin Luther King linked black oppression to white economic oppression. So a patriarchal society which demands men have greater socioeconomic status does, arguably, link to the disempowerment of homeless men at the same time as it links to the disempowerment of women trapped in subservient occupational roles.

Think what you like. That's my view.

If you haven't seen this before, John, it might be of interest:

whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Well there are lots of other people putting forward arguments on here that other posters might be familiar with. We are all also writing for anyone external who reads all this as well who might not be familiar. I am not going to refrain from stating my case just because other people might be already familiar with it. I've never come across that objection for.

And, while intersectionality is important, I am first and foremost a feminist. I am aware that Hugh Hefner had more privilege than a homeless black man. As a feminist, what do you want me to do about it?

The prob, I suppose, John, is that you thought it necessary to explain it, at length, with examples, when there was no suggestion that anyone posting on here did not understand the concept fully. I agree it is important. That's why most (well, I say most, but I would prefer to say all) feminists are pretty au fait with it!

It is not feminism's job to focus on how a homeless black man is less privileged than Hugh Hefner, any more than it is Cancer Research's job to focus on stroke research.

None of this means that supporters of feminism aren't also supportive of general actions on poverty and racism as they affect men, just as I donate both to campaigns for girls' education and to a local hospice.

Jacquetta: Can I ask what you mean by the 'liberation of women'? Genuine question.

John

Of course intersectionality is important.

The first and foremost thing feminism focuses on, though, is the liberation of women. It is the treatment of women as lesser than men which is feminism's concerns. Within that, of course disabled women, black women, homosexual women, Muslim women face more than one set of discrimination.

Bertrand: No, or at least rarely. I was just underlining the point as it seemed relevant. What is the prob?

Meph: I have been hurt by women, but never in the name of feminism. I've never been threatened with violence by a feminist.