about the feminism/WR area?

[fleacircus]

I don't like dogs, and I think most television is irredeemably stupid drivel and that there's no excuse for anyone with an actual life of their own to watch 'Made in Chelsea', and although I like knitting I don't really get the point of scrap-booking. Those are my opinions, and I'm entitled to hold them, and I would construct arguments to support them if pushed, but I don't go onto the TV thread and find people who like 'Made in Chelsea' and then go on about how wrong they are and when they get angry keep saying 'you just can't take it that other people don't share your opinions' until they get bored and give up on the thread altogether.

And I've got all the kids I want, thank you very much, so I'm not TTC, and I was lucky to conceive my kids in a very straightforward manner, so I don't actually know anything about how it feels not to, and I don't have any useful advice or insights for those who are TTC, and I don't have any medical expertise about TTC, so I've set my MN preferences not to display those threads.

So why is it that people who clearly have no interest in feminism or women's rights, and no knowledge of the often complex political, social and personal ideas being explored, and don't actually hope to learn anything or contribute anything of any value, hang around that area spoiling for a fight? Because there's a whole section of MN dedicated to expressing your opinions. It's this one. There's a question mark in the title and everything.

Or AIBU?

If the squish-relishing is really not there any more, I may give it a go....it was all quite disconcertingly cliquey and ganging-up in the way that I fervently deny women-only spaces can be

I think it's better, MI. I doubt it's perfect, as MN as a whole isn't.

I like the feminism boards here. They've been of great help to me as it's helped me explain to my daughters that their views are indeed feminist, and that labelling yourself as a feminist does not mean you hate men, nor should it be shameful. I'm happy to say they are now proud feminists. And yes, they both have boyfriends.

Sorry I don't have time to read the whole thing but MUST pick this item of twattishness up in case anyone else hasn't:

Larry "However some feminists use the concept of male privilege to espouse some pretty vile anti male views in exactly the same way as some anti Semites use Jewish "conspiracy" or "privilege" to excuse some pretty vile racism"

The difference is Larry, that "male privilege" differs from "jewish conspiracy" in the very important respect that IT EXISTS whereas only antisemitic arseholes think that "jewish conspiracy" exists. If you think that believing in male privilege = believing in jewish conspiracy then you have a very very low opinion of all feminists as quasi-racist nutters. I know you think that actually - it has often been apparent tho weasellingly expressed - I just thought I would call it out for general clarity

I agree totally, youre. I had the same issue with that phrase.

I think this gets trotted out quite a lot but, anyway - virtually all the feminists on MN have male partners or sons. I'm trying to think of anyone who doesn't have/speak of a close male relative they're fond of, and can't, though I expect there might be one or two people I'm forgetting. The vast majority of feminists have feministy blokes right there with them who're agreeing with what we see. It's just our posts would be twice as long and surreal in their stepfordishness if we finished each one with '... and DH says the same, and points out ...' or 'and my DS also suffers from this patriarchial bullshit, and ...'.

Like francesca, I never thought these boards were about converting anyone. I thought they were about discussion and debate. If minds get changed along the way, that's well and good, but surely not the point.

It looks to me that, yet again, some people are looking desperately for ways to criticise the FWR board. Like some of the others, I don't think it's perfect and I think the tone has got out of hand at times, but there is no question in my mind that the nastiest and most insensitive commentary has been contributed by trolls or people who have it in for that board, rather than by the regulars who post there.

Maybe so, kot. I admit, for me it definitely made me think about the power structures he's talking about, though. I mean, he is comparing feminists to anti-semites. It might just be that is the first comparison that occurred to him, but I think it fails to acknowledge that, typically, Jewish people and women have been the subjects of prejudice, while anti-semites and misogynists have tended to have the power.

I think this matters because it's an emotive comparison, and lots of people will see it and subconsciously think, well, anti-seminism is horrible, so if feminists are like that, that's really disgusting.

Yet the difference is, feminists don't have an institutionalized power base, which anti-semites past and present have done.

(You can just give me the 'overthinker of the thread' prize now. )

kotinka, I'm not twisting it. I am cutting and pasting it. He said it. He drew a direct equivalence.

I know Larry, I know he thinks this, but he never admits it, so I thought it would be useful to hold that one up for a look

A lot of people think it, it's not just Larry.

A lot of people think of feminists as a group of very fortunate, powerful, emancipated women who spend their time trying to push the power balance to the other extreme, to oppress men. It's a really upsetting idea, but it is absolutely something people think.

Yup, LRD, exactly. It is an unsuitable comparison unless you think that feminists are associated with a global drive to disempower, dispossess, smear, humilate and ultimately KILL all men - and that it is potentially in their power to do so.

Yes, that's what I was trying to get at with the 'not quite Godwin but nearly' comment much earlier in the thread, youre.

But I do think it is quite common for people to feel that this is something feminists want (or, you know, a less extreme version!). I know I've chatted to people in RL who will say, well, I want to be an equalist because I don't want women to be more powerful than men, because they think that that is what feminism is about.

I read a post the other day - not sure if it was this topic or another one - where someone said 'what is a radical feminist anyway?' and someone else helpfully explained that they're the ones who just want women to be in charge for the same length of time as men were, to redress the balance.
(Which we absolutely don't, just in case anyone was wondering.)

I'm going to explain this badly, so bear with me. Maybe someone else will pick it up and explain better.

But I think this is a persistent issue with feminism. Very often, someone will pick holes in something that seems to most people to be a side issue. Like here, you're and I both picked up on the precise comparison larry used, even though I do think we both understood that he was basically making a point about how he sees feminism, not about how similar to antisemitism he thinks feminism is.

I don't think feminists are usually talking about people consciously and deliberately being misogynistic. It's not that we read a post like that totally differently and don't see the same meaning everyone else does - but I read it and I start thinking about the power structures that are being mentioned there. Just because I've got into the habit of doing that from talking about feminism a lot.

It isn't me saying, 'oh, larry is deliberately calling feminists Nazis! Run and scream!'. But the fact that this is the comparison that occurred to him tells me something about the way he sees the power balance in the world.

I think it is common for people to have the misconception that feminists want women to be in charge. I think Larry has an extreme version of this if he believes that feminists want to start with ghettos and move on to a European and ultimately global holocaust of men - and they can

Interesting if he thinks that this is what women would do if they were in charge, but men being in charge of women is fine and dandy, because they are naturally fairer or something

I only dip in and out of the FWR board but it seems amazingly stimulating at the moment with lots of interesting and witty threads. After the Great Crisis last year it went through a bit of a quiet phase but has bounced back brilliantly and I have spotted much less jumping on posters for not being sufficiently rad fem. Yes there is robust debate but much less nastiness than there used to be.

I would urge all posters who have been put off by previous experiences to dip their toes in again.

"Interesting if he thinks that this is what women would do if they were in charge, but men being in charge of women is fine and dandy, because they are naturally fairer or something" Mildred

x-posted - yy LRD. It just displays so much, and so much that he didn't intend to show us, but he still did

It is like - at work someone had a baby (biologically) the same week someone else adopted a child. The biological mother got sent the usual corporate gift, the adoptive mother got nothing. she was upset. The HR manager didn't mean to upset her, but her processes made her automatically send a gift to one and not the other. the fact that she didn't know she was being discriminatory doesn't make that ok and doesn't make it wrong to pull it out and look at it. We are being unfair to the adoptive mother if we don't.

We need a new version of the internet where informed debate happens.

I have the same problem at work....I keep having to explain that I am interested in informed debate even from people with informed opinions that differ from my own informed opinions....I am not at all interested in uninformed debate or opinions.

That's really sad for your colleague, you're.

And that's exactly what I mean ... we all mean well but these things can still hurt someone.

ice - oh, shit. Well, I'm afraid I'm definitely in the uninformed debate camp and proud of it. Life for me is too short to become an expert in feminist theory. I'm getting there slowly and I'm interested in it but I don't think it is as important as experience.

Ice - but a lot of the interesting conversation on FWR comes from people asking ignorant questions or putting forward naive opinions. The variation in intellectual levels between/within threads adds depth rather than the opposite.