Feminists hate men

John- is there anything that has led you to believe that the women posting on feminist boards have not grasped the separate concepts of "men as individuals" and "men as a class"?

Or, indeed, "women as a class" and "women as individuals"?

These concepts are among the ^foundation stones" of feminist discourse.

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.

Likewise, in a phallocentric culture OVERALL men have more sexual power over women and that point should be made to a general audience; but you wouldn't make that point to a male victim of childhood sex abuse by a woman, because in that situation the conventional gender power balance has been reversed (or at least partly so) and it would be wholly innapropriate. Also there are some (albeit few) areas where patriarchy hurts men and benefits women. The taboo concerning male expression of emotions arguably contributes to suicide and the patriarchal identification of women as nurturing and maternal means they are more likely to evade detection of sexual abuse (or conversely the male is assumed to be 'up for it').

Sorry I don't mean to tell you all this as though you don't know it already, just to make the point that saying men have in general have more power than women is fine; but applying that rule across all contexts is problematic. Intersectional feminism is IMO opinion far more rewarding in that it integrates economics and race into its analysis.

Meph, whilst I agree that hatred of any group isn't harmless,, I don't actually know what "actions" people mean when they talk about man-haters - as you say yourself, the tendency is far more to discuss and explore, not hurt and insult.

I'm very confused by the concept of women using feminism to justify abuse. I can't think of how that could be framed at all.

"But I've seen it's mirror image, and that was framed and justified by feminist narratives and perspectives."

Are you saying that women use feminism as a justification for abusing men and boys?

" its going to see a lot more people framing their abuse using feminism as rationalisation"

Why do you think this?

Far more family annhilators are men than women and i suspect hatred/othering of the woman (and grouping her children with her as others that must also suffer) is behind some of that.

I agree.

But I've seen it's mirror image, and that was framed and justified by feminist narratives and perspectives. As feminism gets more powerful, if those feminist narratives and perspectives aren't balanced by nuance and genuine education (and there's a lot of unnuanced activism around gender and identity in this modern age) its going to see a lot more people framing their abuse using feminism as rationalisation. This is why hatred against men isn't harmless.

I don't believe feminists hate men, because on this site at least I've seen the qualification of hostile generalisations in response to the statement that they were hurtful and offensive. People who hate don't care about the impact of their words on others.

Meph

Clearly child abuse is wrong, which ever sex perpetrates it. IIRC, you had some bad experiences as a boy and I am sorry for them.

Far more family annhilators are men than women and i suspect hatred/othering of the woman (and grouping her children with her as others that must also suffer) is behind some of that.

Scallops I am finding your posts unnecessarily aggressive and rude. 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.

Agree Buffy. I guess I just meant that there are two levels of perception - both of which have their place. As you go about life you notice patterns of oppression and inequality in particular contexts; but simultaneously you're just relating to individuals as they come. You meet nice men and nasty men; nice women and nasty women. But the ways in which they are nasty and the contexts in which men TEND to be particularly nasty indicates power imbalances. Does that chime with your experience as a feminist and a woman?

Lass,

I saw another post on which John didn't take the hint and got blunter and blunter posts attacking him. As you can see from scallops post above, it seems history is about to repeat itself.

He also told us he is autistic on that thread.

I really didn't mean to be rude to John. I was just trying to tell him that this wasn't going to end well and he'd be better off not bothering.

Understand how it might be seem to be rude and interfering, so apologies to all. It really is none of my business.

Yet here you are on a thread telling feminists what is wrong with feminism. Have you gone onto threads of Socialists to tell them the problem with class analysis? Or threads for BME to tell them what's wrong with their outlook. Or do you just want to save your special wisdom for women, John?

What do you mean Mepistopholes?

I have to admit (ii) does seem something of a conceptual contradiction.

I think there is SOMETIMES a problem with the way feminists move from the general to the specific - with how they apply conclusions about patterns of behaviour within a social structure to all individual situations. Of course the general does manifest in the specific, but not always; and even when it does it can be in very complex ways to do with multiple intersections of power.

Of course this is not just a problem for feminism, but any body of thought that looks at the world through an ideological prism. However much it is true on a wider level that women, ethnic minorities or economic classes are oppressed, when engaging with an infinite variety of individuals in daily life, things become more complicated.

Sometimes hatred of men manifests as scars on the faces of children

what?

Sometimes hatred of men manifests as scars on the faces of children.

As I see it there are broadly three possible positions:

(i) I hate some men because they behave like twats, and as a result I'm mistrustful of all men
(ii) I hate men as a class because so many of them behave like twats, but have no problem with many men on an individual level
(iii) I hate all men because some of them behave like twats.

(i) seems entirely defensible to me, but, blatantly, doesn't amount to man-hatred. (iii) is pretty much the dictionary definition of prejudice.

I get the sense that many feminists would subscribe to something like (ii) but I'm finding hard to grasp on a conceptual level. There's a bit of me that wonders if it's nothing more than a bullshitty 'intellectualisation' of a cognitive dissonance. Can anyone help me out?

I usually reply with a bright and perky 'oh no, I love men - just ask my husband, brother, son and pals - but I do hate the patriarchy, don't you?' then move on. It is a question rarely asked by someone looking to engage with feminism, and the follow up usually involves something around bra-burning.

Vestal, just because some feminists don't agree with you doesn't mean they "don't count".

But more generally the way marriage was instrumental in reducing women to commodities. It goes beyond financial bride price I think...