Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Ok I admit it; I AM angry with men.

57 replies

poshsinglemum · 13/01/2011 18:23

It's not good is it? I don't want to be but I am angry tbh.

I'm angry with the boys at school for calling me ugly.

I'm angry that there was an old boys network at school which seemed to think that I wasn't up to scratch as a female.

I'm angry with my ex for abusing me emotionally.

I'm angry with dds dad for abandoning me when pregnant.

I am angry with the patriarchy for demonising me as a single mum.

I think I am angry as I feel rejected by men in general and this somehow confirms that I am not up to scratch as a women. I know this isn't right.

I want to build better relations with me but how? Do I have to conform and fight the battle to stay young, thin, attractive and pleasing? Do I become one of the boys because apparently being myself isn't good enough.

OP posts:

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 13:38

I don't think "men as a group" needs to mean every man within that group, btw.

"White south africans" meant white south africans as a group - for years, white SA resisted change. That didn't mean every single white south african was resisting change, many honourable exceptions fought alongside other anti-apartheid campaigners; but they wouldn't have whinged about being tarred with the same brush, because they recognised that WSA's as a group were oppressing other SAs, even if they themselves as individuals weren't.

I think people get hung up on the "group" as political description issue.

anyway must go to my book group, back later

FlamingoBingo · 14/01/2011 13:44

Dittany - I don't know, is the honest answer! I think I was kind of trying to give the other side of hte coin - in that it's not just men who work against equality and the eradication of violence against women. And I took offense at you saying I was sexist - I think I was trying to clarify why I wasn't sexist.

I feel very defensive of the men in my life who are as angry as I am about these things. Is that such a bad thing? It doesn't stop me being angry at the majority of men since time immemorial - I just don't like to see good men lumped in with everyone else.

And arguing these things out gives feminists a strong grounding in how to explain things to anti-feminists who argue stupid things like 'men get raped too, dont you know' etc.

dittany · 14/01/2011 13:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FlamingoBingo · 14/01/2011 14:04

Have responded, Dittany.

Your first paragraph of this post has made the most sense to me - thank you.

dittany · 14/01/2011 14:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Beachcomber · 14/01/2011 16:19

FlamingoBingo I hope you won't take this the wrong way - I really don't mean it unkindly.

My first reaction to your posts was that, ironically, you are doing some 'patriarchy propping' yourself.

See how easy it is to fall into the trap? As dittany says - we are trained to do so.

Of course there are good men out there - my dad is one of them too. That doesn't stop he and I having discussions about male violence/male supremacy/male group behaviour/male oppressive behaviour. My dad knows that he does not act violently towards women himself as an individual - he is however aware that, as a man, he benefits from a system of male violence that is perpetrated by men as a group over women as a group.

The fact that there are some good 'uns in the group does not change the wider reality.

wukter · 14/01/2011 16:39

So is it kind of a semantic thing then? So 'Men as a group' really means 'The majority of men, exceptions recognised.'

dittany · 14/01/2011 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 17:16

"I feel very defensive of the men in my life who are as angry as I am about these things."

That in itself is a very interesting statement.

The whole analysis of the group thing is fraught because we live in a very individualistic culture and people resent being categorised according to the group they belong to and resist identification with that group. Hence the "I'm just meeeeeeeee" whine which always emanates from whatever group is being critiqued - whites, men, the middle classes, the political class, teachers, politicians, workers, bosses, bankers blah di blah.

It is a cry which is actually profoundly reactionary because it encourages everyone to not see link ups in

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 17:19

oops, sorry posted in the middle of typing.

... link ups in the way the majority of a group might act or think, atomising responses as just being about individuals.

Hence the fury when people say that other people are influenced by fashion/ the meejah/ the culture etc. - we are constantly being bombarded by the message that we are all individuals and we make our own choices, as if those choices are being made in a vacuum.

wukter · 14/01/2011 17:20

I hear you on 'Don't label meeee thing' HB.

Dittany, I see. I do think it's a bit divisive though. Probably not helpful, it seems to promote a 'them and us' perspective. That goes for any 'ism' though.

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 17:27

People always think that you are accusing them of being stupid for being influenced by the culture in which they live, as if it's somehow uniquely weak and stupid to imbibe some of the messages that we are surrounded by from the day we are born, rather than being perfectly normal and understandable.

It really is a remarkably strong strain in our culture and I think that's why people's urge to defend their individual members of a group is so strong. Because of course we are all influenced by our culture, so of course we are also subject to the discomfort of having our friends and families "labelled" as part of the group.

I think we need to get past that. If we don't, we're stuck in that don't label meeeeee rut and as Dittany says, analysis is impossible and therefore so is change.

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 17:29

And of course, the patriarchy, the establishment, the meejah, promote that individualist message assiduously, because it is in their interests to ensure that people are atomised and divided from each other.

giyadas · 14/01/2011 17:32

I think it is 'them and us', but that is not of 'our' making. 'They' are afforded privileges just by being 'them', 'we' are not.
Even the most feminist friendly mans life is eased by this privilege and they often either don't notice or don't want to rock the boat, either way the status quo is retained.
It makes it very hard for me to feel protective of them.

Dunoon · 14/01/2011 17:35

Aceepting all of the limitations on generalising-I feel angry with men because they rape, they murder, they are paedophiles and they engage in war.
I also find that I have little respect for men as they walk away from their families with seeming ease.

I haven't found many good role models amongst men in my life.

wukter · 14/01/2011 17:39

Giyadas - you are saying All Men Receive These Privileges so I would think in that case it's perfectly valid to say Men as a Group there.

But when you are talking about behaviours, especially bad behaviours, I don't think it's helpful to speak of Men as a Group.

giyadas · 14/01/2011 17:52

I agree with what you've said Wukter, but I've also noticed the 'but I'm meee' arguments surface even in relation to privilege, where there is total denial of privilege or the assertion that only other men benefit from it.
But yes, regarding behaviour maybe 'some men' is better phrasing.

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 18:09

But "some men" is meaningless, because once again, it is reducing the behaviour to individual vice, as opposed to systematic behaviour, which some individual men are decent enough not to engage in.

HerBeatitude · 14/01/2011 18:11

"some men" is more applicable to unusual behaviour rather than usual IYSWIM.

And oh, so agree about the outrage you get when you point out that all individuals within a group, benefit from the privilege of that group even if they don't engage in the negative behaviour of the group.

FlamingoBingo · 14/01/2011 19:06

This is a really interesting thread. Thank you for all the thoughtful discussion.

It's made me think that is it really 'them and us' or 'them and me'. Ie. 'I am an individual and all them are a big group of people who are not me who I am able to generalise about'? And I'm actually talking about myself here as well...in that I find myself surprised when I meet people who feel the same way as I do about things, as if I've been thinking I'm the only one with these non-conformist/subversive thoughts. Which is, of course, bollocks.

That's a bit rambling - not sure if it makes any sense.

weedle · 15/01/2011 00:22

This thread is mind boggling! After the vajazzling question I popped by with last time, I've been lurking around these here parts and reading some threads to glean a bit of insight. Gotta say this thread is a bit scary, I'm guessing I'm either lucky to have met more 'good' men than 'bad' or I'm busy propping up a patriachal society. Probably 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other. I'll go back to lurking now, I'm a thread ninja

noodle69 · 15/01/2011 09:40

I have known people in the past with this mindset. They feel like this and then keep repeatedly attracting idiots and that makes them think 'see most men are like this' etc etc. When I dont think its true at all and can see from a mile off that its just they seem to be weirdly attracted to the minority of men who are losers.

I will be truthful and maybe very simplistic, but from the outside looking in I just think why do they do it to themselves? I know people who have been with complete idiots, break up with them and seek someone out who is obviously exactly the same. Then they will hurt them and then they go on facebook/rl saying told you all/most men are like this. I really dont understand it as its obvious to me from an outsider that they are setting themselves up for hurt over and over again within about half an hour of meeting the person. Its like they are all most blind by it and so repeat the same patterns and hurt themselves over and over.

It is a complex issue and I will be honest and say I cant understand it at all when I see women who put themselves through this in RL. I havent got any answers though unfortunately.

HerBeatitude · 15/01/2011 12:14

I think there are 2 different things going on here noodle and weedle, which overlap at times.

is the issue of individual problems of low self esteem, which I think you need to go to Stately Homes threads to get some insight into - why people get caught in bad cycles and keep setting themselves up to be hurt, is an endlessly fascinating subject and of course affects men as well as women

and

is the discussion about men as a political class and how they grimly hold on to their privilege while not recognising they've got it.

The two issues overlap because it is in the interests of the patriarchy to ensure that women's self-esteem is kept low.

nurseblade · 15/01/2011 17:11

Interesting article in the guardian today:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/15/suzanne-moore-time-to-get-angry

HerBeatitude · 15/01/2011 18:13

My god, the Daily Mail will never commission her again - what's happened there?

Great article and interesting to see how ANGRY all the comments are at the very thought of a resurgent, unapologetic feminism.

Flip

1 2 3