'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'd like to make an admission, but there definitely is what could be described as some level of man-suspicion (not sure I'd call it hatred).

I'm a man and I've name changed but I've posted on the feminism board before. When I've been clear that I've been a man, I've had a lot of anger directed at me. When I've joined discussions where I've not given my gender (and therefore I think it was assumed I was a woman), and expressed similar views, the ire directed towards me disappeared. It was an interesting test.

celadon,

You're right, it's just an observation on my part. It was just my observation that I could make the same points on various threads, if I identified myself as a man, I could be told that I was displaying male entitlement, etc, but if I implied I was a woman, I could argue my points, and we could have a decent discussion.

Prolesworth,

I suppose there's a fine line between being anti-patriarchy, and anti-men, and I think it's very easy to stroll close to that line on occasion.

Oppenheim, as Prolesworth says, I think if you think hard enough about that one you will probably be able to figure out why that may be.

I for one was perfectly welcoming and respectful to a man on here only for him to patronise the crap out of me, talk down to me and boss me around on a thread about pornography. I even defended him on one thread about how welcome men were in the feminist section. That sure came back to bite me on the arse.

Feminist discussion spaces are often suspicious of men (if they even tolerate their presence that is) for a reason.

We have also had a male poster behave with appalling crassness and male privilege on a thread about childbirth in which women were sharing birth trauma stories.

One of the problems with men participating in feminist discussions is that it is very very difficult for a person of privilege to not act privileged. I blame the patriarchy myself.

Perhaps if you're the sort of chap who prowls around feminist boards all cloak and dagger pretending to be a woman, you're the sort of chap who might annoy people anyway? Who'd'you think you are, Henry V?

Oppenheim wrote - "When I've joined discussions where I've not given my gender (and therefore I think it was assumed I was a woman), and expressed similar views, the ire directed towards me disappeared. It was an interesting test."

Lots of variables to consider in your experiment.

When you did not declare your sex, what evidence do you have (rather than your assumption) that other posters assumed you to be female?

Posters have no evidence that you are male or that you are a regular who has name-changed, other than you saying that.

Women who have concealed their femaleness to e.g. apply for jobs or to have work published etc, have noticed for centuries that they are treated differently (e.g. George Eliot). Hence feminism.

I respond to people on the basis of their attitudes to feminism, women and myself. I don't care if they are male, female or intersex.

Also, there are viewpoints that are not at all the same depending on the person who expresses them and that person's perspective and status.

A woman saying certain things about women's issues will not be 'read' by other women in the same way a man will be. I would be more likely to listen to a woman I didn't necessarily agree with, on many issues, because I know that she is tackling the subject from a female perspective and thereby the perspective of someone who does not have male privilege and who experiences woman's lower status.

Seems bleedin' obvious really.

vesuvia,

I agree, it's only one anecdote, I'm not planning on publishing this in a journal paper. It was only my perception from a few threads I'd participated in, and doesn't constitute a wide study.

I can see why women would be suspicious of men, it makes sense.

JoanofArgus,

I never pretended to be a woman!

Beachcomber,

I can see how you might be sympathetic to a woman arguing a particular point, but it really shouldn't matter if it's a man or a woman arguing the exact same point.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but I really don't understand how Purves came to that conclusion about Lionel Shriver's book. I don't think she's read it, I think she's read ABOUT it and perhaps flicked through.

I also don't know anybody who hates men, feminists included. I do know a few people who hate women though, and sadly there are quite a lot of women in their number.

Misandry (I hope that's the correct spelling) makes me very uncomfortable. However in my experience it is women who are anxious to point out they are not feminsts who wear t shirts with "men are stupid, throw rocks at them" on the front or who disparage all men.

Oppenheim, I often link to this blog when the subject of men in feminist spaces comes up

The post in question is long so I'm going to quote the most relevant bit (although it is pretty long too!);

"As a guy who spends a great deal of time reading about, commenting on, and posting about feminist issues, I try to be really aware of what it means to have Male Privilege. I firmly believe that our culture- the very way that our society is structured- is harmful to women, and, as someone who strongly values fairness, I think that we have an obligation to work to end that. And while I also think that patriarchical systems hurt men, too, there's also the reality that part of fighting against sexism and part of being a feminist is the recognition that ending these oppressive structures means giving up unearned privileges.

And that's hard.

It's not always easy to step back and examine why I'm reacting the way I am. It's not easy to have someone accuse me of exhibiting male privilege- there are times when I want to say "But I'm on your side!" I want to do the right thing, and being told that I'm missing doesn't feel good, and it can make me feel defensive. I work to get past that and to examine my feelings and thoughts, and I often find that the other person is right. I think that I come out ahead for it, but it's not always easy or fun to discover some element of privilege that you weren't aware you had.

And the reality is that there are times when I don't think I'm wrong, and that can actually be worse.

It's not something that I talk about, and I've thought about talking about a number of times in the past, and I've always backed off, because... well, it's not a fun conversation, but if I'm going to be open and honest about my experiences as a man on feminist spaces, I think it's important to talk about it. Particularly if I want to make it clear to other men what they're in for and what they should expect.

There are times when I read a post or a comment on feminist blogs, and I simply can't participate in the conversation. It could be that I recognize that there's nothing I can add to the conversation, or it could be that the conversation is about a topic where my experiences as a man mean that I can't contribute in a meaningful way, but sometimes it's because I know that no matter what I say, it's going to create hostility, because sometimes the comments are coming from a place of deep frustration and hurt as a result of life experiences that I can only imagine.

So, yes, there are times when I simply have to shut up. Is that fair?

I don't know. Maybe it's not. Maybe I ought to be able to freely express my thoughts without fear of being unjustly attacked. Maybe I should be able to respectfully disagree with someone and expect to be treated with the same respect. Maybe.

But, honestly, I don't think so.

I think that it's my obligation as a male on a feminist space to recognize that one of the privileges that many men enjoy is the ability to have their voice respected over that of a woman. Another aspect that I try to keep in mind, and that I think is important is that many women are used to having their voices silenced, and that sometimes their anger and resentment is coming from a place that I'll never have to experience.

One of the ways that men can help deconstruct patriarchical systems is by having empathy for women's experiences, and by recognizing that sometimes it's important to shut up on women's spaces. In a world that consistently devalues the experiences of women, it's not so much to ask that women have a place where they're free to vent their frustrations."

I think it does matter Oppenheim. I think the same applies in the context of white supremacy.

A white person could make the same argument as a black person but it will not necessarily be received in the same way by a group of black people.

The white person has not experienced, and never will, experience the issues in the way that a black person has. Sometimes what feels like agreement to the privileged person, comes across as insulting to the non privileged person. Sometimes it comes across as trying to explain our oppression to us. Sometimes it comes across as a defence for privilege. Even when the privileged person means well.

I'm probably not explaining this very well, it isn't easy to put words on.

Thank you proley - glad it makes sense.

I don't mean to put the boot in, but I also think that a privileged person who thinks they should be treated the same as a nonprivileged person, in a space dedicated to the issues and voices of the nonprivileged, is acting really, well - privileged.

I also think the person is exhibiting obliviousness to their privilege.

Handy word 'privilege' isn't it?

What an excellent quote beachcomber

fab explanation Beachcomber.
this is what I would like to say to Oppenheim - I typed it earlier, decided not to post it, but will put it out there anyway, even though Beachcomber said what I was trying to say only much more succinctly:

I'm not surprised if people on here treat you differently when you say you're a man - we are all conditioned from birth to see and treat men and women very differently, and feminists have never claimed to be immune to conditioning. (We would like it not to happen one day, but that is a very different thing, and we are not there yet.)
However, most of the time this conditioning works in FAVOUR of men - job applications with a man's name at the top are rated more highly, contributions to discussion in the workplace are regarded as more valuable if they come from men. (Though this is also not to say that there are not also a few situations where men lose out.)
Therefore if you are coming to this feminist space because you are serious about learning about feminism, perhaps you ought to appreciate the insight into what it feels like to be treated differently because of your sex.
Feminism is about women's lived experience so it's not unreasonable that a woman's contributions would be regarded differently from a man's in this topic. Now imagine how it feels when you are talking about something on which you are just as expert as members of the opposite sex and yet your contributions are still ignored or rubbished just because of your sex.

Thank you for the kind words sisters.

It is lovely coming here and being 'got' by folks isn't it?

V true what you say about conditioning Sybil.

It would be interesting to have some feedback from Oppenheim on our answers to his posts.

MitchiestInge wrote;
'I actually do think it would be a good idea to thin out the male population by culling about 95%. Just to see if it helps.'

I was speculating about this with colleagues over the last few days. Those who saw the Canadian drama series 'ReGenesis' might see that MitchiestInge's idea would make for the possibility of a TV script.

What would the world be like if say you went to bed one night having kissed your 8-year-old son goodnight and woke up in the morning to find five-out-of-a-hundred males still alive?

Conceivably it could be done with a tailored virus that identified a particular combination of proteins to ensure that 5% of males remained.

What would such a world be like afterwards? Obviously those who had lost much-loved sons, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, lovers, cousins, nephews and best mates would be distraught.

The assumption would be that the world would be a better place for it; no more wars, violence against women, no DV, rape, environmental damage. A world of 95% women would be, as Mary Daley suggested, an absolute paradise for women. Everyone would get on just dandy.

Or would they?

MummyBerryJuice Fri 20-May-11 09:14:08

I see orsinian has not been back. grin (wonder why he thinks the women on here could so easily be shut-up)

Actually not unusual this. In a previous posting I was being accused of being a multiple-personality (my 'alter' being a female scientist 13,000 miles away). We both have a laugh at that and strangely-enough are now contributing to social history project together.

Being accused of being a 'he' probably isn't so unusual. I am guessing that on MRA sites, anyone posting against the majority view will be accused of being a 'she' - a strange but perhaps understandable use of gender labelling.

Nice attempt at side-stepping there.