Feminism

[slightreturn]

Please feel free to express your views honestly re; Feninism.
What to men really think about it?

that made me laugh out loud habbibu! And I agree.

I wonder about that too Habbibu! Unless someone is the queen of feminism, why should disagreeing with her/them put you off altogether? It's like saying I can't be a Christian because my local vicar is a slimy tosspot.

booyhoo/UQD - yes I agree that men must understand and adopt many changes that feminism wants. To get that buy in though from men though feminism must avoid talking about men as if they are the enemy to be attacked. Only a minority of feminists do that but as soon as it happens men naturally stop listening and become defensive.

Jeez, BB - do you think white people should have stopped listening to the Civil Rights Movement?

And that's such a demand, BB - don't you see how that's going to get many women's backs up? "Get your house in order, ladies, or we won't join in".

But it's true, and it's what I meant above when I said "it needs to get men on board with its aims rather than just being anti-them all the time" - some of the vocabulary is deliberately designed just to annoy, especially stuff like "mansplain" which is just patronising.

I can see what BB, UQD etc mean (even though I have probably been that meanie poster at some point over on the FWR section). If you feel like you're dipping your toe and you get snapped at it's only natural to want to shy away afterwards. Where I think it's a problem is when it comes down to the whole "if you don't all play nicely I won't speak to you" thing. We're all individuals, and I don't have any more control over what dittany or Sakura or ISNT post, than I have over what BB or UQD post. If you've been put off by a few posters, you could probably assume that there are a majority of posters who are not attacking you, and discussing with you or even supporting you. Don't assume that one person speaks for all. This is one of the challenges of feminism - if a man drives badly, he is a bad driver; if a woman drives badly, women are bad drivers.

I would love to have a more diverse group of people discussing feminism, but there are a few things that are likely to really piss off feminists. That's because even though you may be lovely, there are some real woman-haters out there (just try the internet), who also coincidentally say the same things. Might be a good idea to check out what some of these are, in order to avoid accidentally kicking up a storm.

Few suggestions:

• blaming problems on PMT/hormones (you have them too)

• ignoring female posters stated experiences in favour of contrary "hearsay" experiences (not the band) from female friends/relatives

• "feminism has gone too far", even if in situation X you think this is the case, have a read of something like the honour killing thread and you will see why feminists think it definitely hasn't gone far enough :(

• quoting "all men are rapists", it's a quote from a novel, guys, not an essay. Hence it's not a statement of fact or even opinion, it's fiction, okay?

But you're assuming that that's true of the majority, and I don't know why you think that.

Mansplain isn't a feminist term. It is a jokey way of referring to a style of speaking/posting more common among men than women.

And how many feminists are anti-men really? Not me. Not most. I think it is an easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy tactic to avoid addressing feminism by playing the victim on the basis of some individual feminists' irritability (and god knows the irritability isn't unprovoked.)

If "mansplain" were used jokily more often, I could believe that. Unfortunately, many people use it as an actual attempt at criticism, with tongue nowhere near cheek.

"mansplain" (I hadn't heard that one) -- I would categorise it as the equivalent of wolf-whistling or groping as far as hostility of attitide goes.

But surely there's enough common ground between the extremes of both 'camps' to allow most men to feel comfortable calling themselves feminists or agreeing with feminist aims?

oh yes

• "you're all a bunch of man-haters" or similar. I think i'm right in saying that all the regulars on the FWR section either have male DPs, DHs or DSs, who we all presumably love, so just forget about that one eh? It just sounds desperate.

yep totally agree beenbeta, my post didn't put that across but absoloutly believe the 'us and them' mentality of some feminists is damaging to the whole feminist movement.

Hear'Say experiences relating the band would require an apostrophe:) (God I'm sad)

I don't think I have done 1 or 2 of E&M's list above. I'm not sure about 3, but I doubt I've used those actual words. And 4? I think most of us know nobody actually says it, verbatim, and means it, but I think everyone understands the mentality it implies.

And the us and them attitude of some men isn't exactly great PR for men either.

E&M: sure, I get that, but if I can use your own words, only slightly changed:

"even though you may be lovely, there are some real man-haters out there (just try the internet), who also coincidentally say the same things. Might be a good idea to check out what some of these are, in order to avoid accidentally kicking up a storm..."

Quite right UQD :o

I don't understand the mentality it implies, and find it really confusing. On the one hand you have people saying women need to "take responsibility" by not walking home late etc, and if a woman was drinking or snogged a stranger and then got raped she was asking for it. This - to me - implies that rapists are everywhere, even that any man is a rapist or at least unable to distinguish between an unconscious woman and a lustful one.

Then you have women saying no, we expect men to have the same common sense as anyone else about these things.

Can you explain?

If we are capable of wrapping our rational minds around the concept of a win-win situation, what holds us all back, I wonder?

like who UQD? and are they dominating youtube, all the major national newspaper boards etc?

and what should I avoid>? (since i helpfully provided a list)

Well, I find it confusing too, but it seems to imply that all men are potential rapists - not that the individual rapist is responsible, but that "men" are. It seems to imply men are potentially dangerous by virtue of possessing a deadly weapon called a penis. This is nonsense, because as everyone agrees, rape is primarily about violence, not sex.

UQD, indeed. And the sarcastic comments about "Oh no, it's 'what about the menz' time".

I fully accept it's only a small minority of feminists who do this. And I don't think the small minority who do it automatically makes feminism as an idea worthless. But I do think it damages the feminism campaign and turns a lot of men and women off.

I'm not saying that I think women in general and feminists in particular need, or even can, do anything about such a minority. You get zealots in all walks of life. But I do think it's unhelpful to pretend that such views don't exist or that they don't cause problems.

It's like how the twattish antics of Fathers 4 Justice damages the (worthwhile, IMO) campaigns for a review of how family courts work. You can disagree with their methods and wish they didn't do it, but you can't pretend that they don't exist or that their methods don't cause harm to the overall aim.

List of potentially annoying things? I won't do it off the top of my head. I'll try to come up with a proper one. I'm sure others can help.

I don't know where you're getting that from though UQD? Who says that men are inherently dangerous?

I spend a lot of time arguing that men and women aren't inherently that different from each other.

Unless you are seeing "men commit more violent crime" and imagining that people are extrapolating this to be "so all men are pigs!"

I still think the fact that you don't like what some - and you mostly seem to have admitted the minority - feminists do/say is far from sufficient justification to distance yourself from the movement. Should I stop saying I'm an atheist because Richard Dawkins - or UQD! - says provocative things about religion and the religious? Should whites have got all defensive if everyone in the civil rights movement wasn't as even-handed as Martin Luther King? It's such a lazy, self-serving argument - "it mustr be exactly as I want it, or I'm not playing".