'Man-hating feminism'

[MisterDarsey]

There's an article about this in the Times today by Libby Purves, provoked by Lionel Shriver's portrayal of the boy in 'We need to talk about Kevin'

Just thought you'd like to know

"I'm sure that there are women who hate men. Women who have been treated very badly by men, or had horrible fathers. The girls who were left in a burning building as the religious police wouldn't let the firefighters rescue them as their faces weren't covered have good reason to hate men. The ones who didn't die, anyway. There are a thousand examples of women who might hate men.

What has that got to do with feminism?"

Thanks for admitting they exist (although their reasons aren't always so perfectly understandable - sometimes they are just bitter cos no man likes them, same as some woman-hating men - true? Admit thats true and i'll give you a medal...

Oh the point is these women will often turn to feminism because it legitimises their hatred, the same way men's right advocates are often just misogynist.

You obviously aren't a great studier of human nature, catmilk, and don't actually know many people in real life!

Of course the vast majority of men are unaware of their privilege, just as the able-bodied are unaware of their privilege, and white people are unaware of theirs. They might know that they are privileged, logically, but they don't really understand it, feel it, and where there are inequalities they don't see it as their fight.

Most able-bodied people don't agitate for disabled rights.
Most people with sound mental health do not spend their time lobbying government for more funding for mental health services.
Most white people do not join in with marches held by black activists in central london.
Most men do not spend their time working for a better deal for women.

Women find it hard to spot unearned male privilege a lot of the time. Women also find it hard to spot female oppression and the mechanisms and behaviours associated with it. And we are the ones who have a major vested interest in detecting these things.

It is hardly a big surprise that the folks who are better off in the patriarchy are fairly oblivious to their group's privilege. People tend to be more aware of things that inconvenience or threaten them than things that make life a bit easier (especially when they are fed the message that this a natural state of affairs).

"Oh the point is these women will often turn to feminism because it legitimises their hatred, the same way men's right advocates are often just misogynist."

You think that women in oppressive regimes around the world are "turning to feminism"? I think you'll find that just like the men, most women consider their lot as normal and the way it is, even to the extent of colluding in it.

Many of the abortions and killing of babies carried out in India and China happen at the behest of female relatives.

You have a very simplistic view of the world, I think, very black and white. And seemingly little insight into human nature, and how power structures work, and how the best power structures of all work when the oppressed genuinely and honestly "know their place".

"men are so accustomed to their gender-privileged position in society that they do not think about it - it is second nature."

Upper middle-class women are so accustomed to their class-privileged position in society that they do not think about it - it is second nature

Are they equally unable to realise their privilege and ever understand, empathise or want to help those less fortunate - or is just men so blinded by their privilege?

Yeah I turned to feminism cos I can't get a man and men don't like me and I needed a good excuse to fuel my embittered hatred to all these men who don't like me.

It had nothing to do with being sexually assaulted on a subway as a teenager, being sexually harassed in the workplace, on the receiving end of obscene phone calls as a child, noticing that women are raped and killed and exploited and sold and trafficked, seeing how women are abused for entertainment in porn, seeing that women are routinely beaten and raped by their husbands or pimped by their 'boyfriends', seeing that women are treated unequally in the workplace, seeing that women are unrepresented in terms of financial and political power, knowing that until not long ago rape within marriage was legal, etc etc. No siree. Not a bit. Ludicrous notion.

Right. Astoundingly perceptive - not.

catmilk of course they are blind to their privilege too.

If you want to join a socialist activism group and try and eradicate this kind of privilege then you are free to do so.

On the feminism section here on MN the point of the story is male privilege.

Ditto feel free to join organisations to help any deprived/oppressed groups that you care about. Go for it

Just don't complain that we are not talking about the troubles of other groups - let alone the troubles of men - on the feminism section.

(Although there is a lot of crossover obv )

under-represented sorry! Things are not so bad that we are totally unrepresented - that situation is thankfully history in the UK at least.

Catmilk-
when i first come to feminism-yep i admit-i thought "yippee this legitimises all my hatred"!
but then i started to understand where this hatred of mine was coming from-
and ive learnt this through feminism,
i didnt stay because i thought-"hey this is great -i can send a thousand posts of voitrol towards men"
i stayed because i wanted to tr and make a diffrence[in my life]
i stayed because i wanted to understand what it was like to be a woman not in my posision and i stayed because i wanted others to understand my path aswell.
its only by understanding each other that people can stop fighting with each other.
i feel these are pretty legit reasons for being a feminist really.

oh and im mighty pleased i dont have a man-i dont want one.

The very idea of ?men as a group? is misandrist. As usual, try substituting that phrase with a racial grouping and see if it reminds you of anything. Men are victims of DV and regularly so some men do have cause to fear some women. Aren?t forced/arranged marriages done with the willing collusion of female family members? Thatcher declared war on Argentina over the Falklands, etc, etc

Tyr wrote - "The very idea of ?men as a group? is misandrist. As usual, try substituting that phrase with a racial grouping and see if it reminds you of anything. "

How about: for centuries, "white people as a group" have oppressed black people.
It reminds me that oppression is bad.

[arent forced/arranged marriages done with the willing collusion of female members?]
no-they have no choice!

Equally flawed; it ignores the role played by "black people" in the slave trade, the role of "white people" in opposing and abolishing it. It suggests that racism and oppression are the sole preserve of "white people"
In fact, it ignores so much, generalises so much and presumes so much as to be fundamentally flawed.

Tyr wrote - "Equally flawed; it ignores the role played by "black people" in the slave trade, the role of "white people" in opposing and abolishing it. It suggests that racism and oppression are the sole preserve of "white people"
In fact, it ignores so much, generalises so much and presumes so much as to be fundamentally flawed."

I disagree.

Tyr are you arguing that white supremacy doesn't exist? Are you trying to argue that white people as a group have been/are oppressed by people of colour?

It is the 'as a group' thing that is important. Black individuals can oppress or dominate white individuals. That oppression is not systematised, institutionalised and woven into the fabric of society however.

Same goes for women - an individual woman can oppress or dominate individual men. We still live in a patriarchy however.

It is quite simple really - you just have to grasp the concept of the difference between individual behaviour and the patterns of individual behaviour that form group behaviour. Add in a bit of institutionalising of these behaviours and bob's your uncle - you got yourself a system of oppression.

TYr the nature of oppression means that some of the oppressed will collude with their oppressors in order to save their own skin or that of their loved-ones

Also most people are aware that white people participated in and supported the civil rights movement - it isn't necessary to point that out every time one refers to white supremacy.

Do these people (Tyr, Catmilk) have no sense of irony? Do you honestly not realise that your contributions here could be the foundation of a very dated 1970's comedy sketch about men's reaction to feminism? Anyway, don't let me keep you... Loving your work, by the way.