Why do I get so irrationally angry at all these "poor men" threads?

Excellent, thanks for the link. I'm just loading up my ebook reader with a bunch of articles to read next week while I'm away at my mum's

I'm not looking for cred: I want to read them because I never have, I should have and I want to. I wonder if anyone would be interested in doing a reading group on here?

I'm studying for a degree in sociology and the emphasis is firmly on poststructuralist perspectives when it comes to gender.

However, I am now going to make a point of reading some of the authors you've mentioned, dittany.

I'm married to a Dworkin-educated, pornography-hating Marxist feminist man, and I would say that the task of bringing up children has put every element of that identity (and my feminist one) under real strain.

I don't think I can raise a non-patriarchal son, though I'll work damn hard to get as close as I can. At nearly seven we've moved from talking about 'silly ideas about women in the olden times' to noticing that some people have those silly ideas now.

I would buy that novel though blackcurrants. .

MrsBean, though my dad didn't experience that violence at first hand, his fury at the system has made him a passionate advocate for social justice. His best friend from his 20s responded to it by becoming a wife-beater who destroyed the life of one of his daughters. As Blackcurrants says, he took comfort in believing that at least he was better than women.

When my students were asking me last week where they could find out about men discussing masculinity (after we'd been discussing feminism for a few weeks), I suggested that they look at series 4 of The Wire: a series made by men which examines how even the men most marginalised within Western society get incorporated into the patriarchy.

But I mentioned that to them, not so we could start talking about about men as victims, but to clear the conversational space for talking about women. It's very hard here or anywhere else to centre a conversation on women because we are all accustomed to returning to men as the natural centre of debate.

Annnd I posted that huge comment without making perhaps the most important point: sexism is systemic and institutional, not something (all) bad men do to (all) good women. When I was 9 (white, middle class, happy privileged kid) I was taught about racism. I wasn't made to feel like a racist, I wasn't told that we were the evil oppressors who should atone daily for our terrible crimes against other races. I wasn't made to feel bad or guilty. I was told it was wrong, but white people had used to think it was right. I was told that white people had benefited from the system (I knew about how Britain had colonised India and Africa and was asking WHY they did that, I think) and perhaps at some less obvious level still did. I was told that my job as a white person was to treat everyone fairly and make sure I wasn't being treated better that anyone else, because I was white. (it was put to me in gentle terms, fairness and sharing). I got it.

I think we can have that conversation about sexism with youngish children (I've had it with an 8 year old girl I babysit) without making them feel miserable, either as oppressors or victims. The thing is, the patriarchy is a system. It's not about evil individuals, though it would be easier if it were. It's systemic (this post at shakesville is great for this.) It is invisible, it's everywhere, and we all work along these lines, often without knowing it. but it's an unfair system which benefits some more than others, and so our job as responsible humans is to be aware of it and work to challenge and mitigate that unfairness.

As a kid, when I got this kind of talk about racism, I remember thinking "Oh, okay" and going back to playing at whatever I was playing at. Obviously unfairness is wrong, and now I had to be careful I wasn't treated WELL unfairly. Oh, ok.
:D

You might also like this take on why PHMT. It might help you to think about 'patriarchy' as a system that's a bad thing, not as 'lots of men are evil!' Because we all know lots of men are not.

mrsbean78, patriarchy absolutely, absolutely hurts men too. Patriarchy is a foul system designed to benefit only the few (rich, white, old) men at the very top of the pyramid. (the intersection of race and class with sex and gender is why some people prefer to use the term 'Kyriarchy' rather than patriarchy. )The others are kept in line because they're told that they're MEN, damnit, and men have to be responsible and set a good example for the women and children and not let the side down or become silly/irrational/effeminate like daft women and children. (Do you see how this goes?)
Patriarchy is toxic. It tells men that feeling is weird and wrong, and women that thinking is not for them (I'm using broad brush strokes here). It tells men that sexual women are desirable, and absolutely theirs to use, and it tells women that their sexuality is not their own... and so on, and so on, and so on.

I'm pg with my first, and DH and I talk a LOT about raising a feminist son, if we have a DS. I want a son who can cry when he's sad, wear whatever colour he likes, dress how he chooses ... but it's not going to happen, is it? Because if he's a 'sissy' then some people (MY DM!) will panic and start giving him bloody guns as presents, ffs, to 'toughen him up' (As was done to a very sensitive and lovely cousin of mine, poor kid). Patriarchy closes down options for everyone, makes it harder for everyone, and one of the reasons people are so unhappy within a patriarchal society is that no one gets the pot of gold promised at the end of the patriarchal rainbow. Women don't get protected and cherished for their precious ladyness. Bad things happen to them. And men don't get rewarded with power and respect for being chivalrous (the kind face of the patriarchy) or brave or strong. The world doesn't really work that way, we're all being sold a crock of sh*t.

There's no question to my mind (or any feminist's mind, I'd imagine) that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too. It hurts everyone. That's why I hate it and what to see it replaced with a system where people can just be people. The thing is, when Patriarchy hurts men it leaves them frustrated and unable to access their feelings, or abused (as in your poor dad. Sorry to hear that. Some of that in my family history too. Patriarchy is GOOD at shame and silence) or killed in wars. But (and this is why patriarchy is so pernicious) - all the time this is happening to them, these men know, because society tells them so, that at least they're better than women. Much as how racism is used to harness the resentment of underprivileged white people - 'don't get angry at the people who are benefiting from your crappy lot in life - the people higher up the scale. Get angry at those (insert racial slur here) who are taking your jobs/houses/women!!'

SO yes, PHMT. Absolutely. It's just that it hurts women differently, in more pernicious ways, often more severely, and it hurts women all the time. So whenever people start to say "Well, patriarchy hurts men too!" I think "Yes, I know. - But that's like telling me "Well, people get robbed of their dignity in the third world too! So don't complain about sexual harrassment in Canley!" - no. Because bad things happen elsewhere doesn't mean I'm wrong to look at this bad thing happening right here, right now, that's hurting me.

And we're all, all, all trained and conditioned to take things that happen to men far more seriously than things that happen to women. Sod that nonsense. Women do worse out of a patriarchal system than men. Men also don't do well. The answer isn't "So stop your moaning!" The answer, to me, is "So let's scrap the toxic, pernicious system!"

I think some hackles were raised because "PHMT" is a classic silencing technique used to stop women talking about women, through derailment. I don't think you were using it in bad faith, but that seems to be why you were getting that reaction. The good news is that we're all sensible people who are interested in the topic at hand

The bad news is that I appear to be unable to make a post on this thread which isn't an absolute novel!

". For someone who has supposedly studied feminist work you don't seem to know much about it or feminists, given all these weird ideas you have about it."

As I've been quite open about, dittany, it was a long time ago and it is a long time since I have discussed any of this.

I want to thank tortoiseonahalfshell for recognising that I am not in any way trying to decry feminism: I don't understand it, really, and I am trying to learn.

I am ill-equipped to discuss it, true, but I am certainly not trying to silence anyone with my arguments. I am trying to open it up, explore the parameters of it, which I fully appreciate is tiring if you've heard it all before. But of course I haven't so can't see it from this angle.. I don't know what you've heard before, or how you've challenged it etc.

The reason that I said I found your tone to me aggressive has nothing to do with feminism. It has to do with the fact that I am telling you, explicitly, that I *don't' 'get it' and you feel that I am trying to subvert your argument and be anti-feminist to win some argument. I don't feel I have an agenda or a side that could 'win' any argument and I don't want it to be a battle. And if gender is socially constructed, well so too is mine: no one is immune to these forces? So if my arguing is clumsy, or even unwittingly anti-feminist, it's certainly not done in the name of any straw-feminism. There are simply aspects of feminism I find hard to reconcile with my tiny male son - and that's just the truth.

I had a look at the bingo and I do feel patriarchy hurts some men, I guess. Not Men with a capital (who for some bizarre reason are always City Traders and barristers in my head), but men like my father, who was sexually abused by a paedophile priest and grew up in a home where severe violence and intimidation were the daily norm.

My father, to his credit given his horrendous background, was very feminist. So is my mother. I never, ever felt that my choices would or should be limited in any way by being a woman. My two grandmothers (still with us!) are powerful, strong women. It took a long time for my father's mother to have the courage to walk away from her abuse: she had an entirely different, second life after she walked away. My mother's mother (in her 80's) is a similar force to be reckoned with.

I can't think of one belief I held about being female that I could say was constraining or enslaving. So it is hard to think about male-female relations in terms of oppression, despite the fact that obviously my grandfather was an abuser, an oppressor..

I suppose, to go with the title of the thread, I do sometimes feel poor men, and a lot of that has to do with the relationships I have with the men in my own life: my father, my husband, my son.

Particularly my dad. Destroyed by sexual abuse in that most patriarchal of institutions, the Church. So 'patriarchy' didn't really do my poor dad any good.. and it's difficult for me to see beyond that.. to lump my father in with the abusers or the warmakers. That creates a tension for me in any discussion of Men Oppressing Women.

I suppose I am trying to say that I do believe that you can have an Oppressing Male and a non-oppressing male; that it is not always as straightforward as that bingo card would have it? I say non-oppressing vs victim because certainly my father was not 'taught' it was right to respect women, he was taught to abuse and beat them.. yet he chose to learn from that lesson that it was wrong to do so. Maybe because of his own abuse, who knows? I just can't see men (without the capital) as the enemy and I hope this explains why..

And perhaps I did learn to argue in a male, anti-feminist way.. but I have never really considered that, one way or the other, before now, so I apologise if it has raised anyone's hackles..

Well, it's good to have you back Molesworth. And thanks Blackcurrant too for putting things so clearly.

Orm, it happens too with concepts such as the family, when for example the Tories have clear ideas about what kinds of family support the common good, and plan to legislate and distribute funds in ways that support their 'common sense' view and disadvantage single parent families.

Or in the rape threads where people say 'I know it's wrong but 'common sense' says that women should behave only in modest ways and if they do that will be better for everyone.' That is a women-hating view that supports the patriarchal status quo, but the claim that it is 'common sense' and 'in everyone's interests' gives it a kind of protected status.

The bingo link is brilliant: thanks for posting it blackcurrants. I may have to print this out and stick it on the wall next to my desk.

@tortoise, good post. I've been avidly following the recent threads on feminism, and I think the antifeminists are pretty easy to spot. It seems obvious to me that Mrsbean isn't one of them, but I can see that constantly batting off the same old antifeminist statements soon becomes enormously frustrating. It's as if you have to don a suit of armour before you can even mention women's oppression.

Not all of us are seasoned feminist debaters and as such the questions we ask or the statements we make might reveal that not all of the scales have fallen from our eyes. I've posted a few times but mainly I've been reading what other - better-informed - contributors have to say. I'm ashamed to say that I have not discussed feminism in this way with anyone, ever, even though I identify myself as a feminist. I had drifted away from mumsnet, but these discussions (and in particular the appearance of a dedicated topic on feminism) have brought me back.

Blackcurrant, that was a fantastic post.

Mrsbean, I am not speaking for dittany in any way, but: every single feminist conversation I've had online gets hijacked by a known set of objections- often by male commentators, not always. And they include things like twisting arguments to create strawfeminists ('so are you saying that it's just impossible to trust male thinkers') and 'well I think it's unfair to tar all men with the same brush' etc etc. One of the classics is the 'tone argument' - well, you're being very aggressive, if you were just nicer you'd have more allies, no wonder people don't like feminists. Classic silencing tactic.

So in some spaces, and I think especially when you've had these conversations for many years, it does get frustrating. And it's easy to assume that the other person is deliberately twisting arguments to marginalise feminists.

I don't think you are. And I'm hoping dittany doesn't mind me posting this, because I'm coming dangerously close to apologia, but I think maybe that's why the interaction between you has gone this way. I do think you're arguing in good faith, but unfortunately, and almost certainly because you have absorbed a lot of antifeminist canards without realising it, it sounds a lot like the things we're used to hearing in bad faith.

You should all, if you haven't seen it before, follow blackcurrant's Bingo link. Classic, wonderful, Feminism 101 stuff.

Some of you are going to get tired of explaining things to others of us But it's good to get things clarified. Many thanks.

Thanks redlentil - yes I see that. If you fight a war for 'freedom' whose freedom do your mean I guess.

blackcurrant - your second paragraph sums up how I feel about men and feminism. They will benefit by default, because IMO an unbalanced society is an unhealthy society. But you won't get many men to realise that, nor quite a few women because they don't see the inequality. Its so much part of the fabric.

Ugh. Messing up my "Its" and "it's" there. - def. bedtime!

Ahaha! I have just read up a few posts and realised I've barged into a v. different thread than the first 2 pages. Apologies! It seems to have become 'how to talk to your sons about inequality" - which is a very interesting topic and one that might deserve it's own thread.

I remember being talked to about racism, and why racism happens, and why it's very bad - when I was about nine. So it's got to be possible to talk about sexism and why it happens and why it's very bad, to a kid of about that age. After all, most nine year olds have a pretty well developed sense of what's "fair" and what isn't, don't they?

YANBU.

Haven't had time to read the whole thread (Looking forward to it after I've had some sleep) but the phrase "What About The Men?" is so common that it's abbreviated to "WATM?!!" or "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too!" in anti-feminist bingo cards!

The thing is, our cultural dialogue is SO dominated by men's voices telling men's stories about men's experiences that when the focus is on women at all, it just feels wrong and somehow the focus has to shift back on the men or the world is out of kilter. (As a sidenote, this study is interesting. Other studies have been done in university classrooms, where the professors took care to call on exactly equal numbers of male and female students. The students were then surveyed on which gender they thought spoke more. Interestingly, even when girls were called on exactly as much as boys, ALL students thought that the girls were called on "far more" than boys, because the 'default' position is men speaking, women listening.}

I love men very much - there's one rather important one in my house - but it's not my job to solve all men's problems, and feminists aren't required to do that as WELL as work to help women in this deeply unbalanced society. My stock response to "but what about the men?" is "I agree, there's a real problem with masculinity. We need a good strong understanding of what it means to be a man, and how that doesn't mean treating women badly. A lot of feminist men I know are working hard in challenging some of the terrible patriarchal constrictions on masculinity - what are you doing about it?" - that always gets some interesting responses. Often a complete silence. Because I am the one talking about inequality between the sexes, so it's assumed that before I get around to dealing with women's trivial issues, I'll make sure all the men are nice and comfy. Nuh-uh! If genuine equality frightens someone, they need to examine their privileged position in life, and why the system benefits them, and what they ought to do about it.

Finally, and I know this is a bit muddled and I really must sleep, I sincerely believe that gender equality is NOT a zero-sum game. By which I mean, if someone else does better, it doesn't automatically mean I have to do worse. I sincerely believe that when women do better in society (get access to the vote, contraception, workplace equality, public safety...) - society does better. Men doesn't do worse when women know their own minds, have their own money, and determine what happens to their bodies. Most men I know prefer women who are fully realised people. When women and girls do better, everyone does better. Certainly one of the finer things feminism has given the men I know and love is the freedom to have admit to having feelings.

[shrug] I think I might not be making any sense. Time to sleep!

Interesting about the 'pot of rights' and how limited resources mean that women should be against anything being done to help boys/men because of it.

That attitude of course justifies every sexist act against women from the dawn of time. Because men could use that same argument equally well. 'There wasn't enough for all so we took it from you'

Arguing for true equality works better than arguing to continue the obscene inequality, but with women on top.

How old are your children Mrs Bean? DS is 11 and I think now might be around the time when this kind of thing should be discussed.

When I was 11 there was a girl on the bus who was subject to what my mother at the time referred to as 'horseplay' but was actually, thinking back, serious sexual harrassment. The school took it quite seriously at the time, and I think it could have been prevented if the boys had been talked to in advance about what is really unacceptable behaviour.