Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

a question for the men here

999 replies

Mitchy1nge · 29/01/2013 01:01

what makes you think you have anything of real value to bring to discussions about women's experiences and expectations?

obviously some men can make interesting contributions (although those sorts of men don't often announce themselves here) to some discussions but generally, on the whole, everything everywhere else is already pretty saturated in Male Voice so was just wondering where you got the idea from

OP posts:
feministefatale · 01/02/2013 15:04

among the women, there are several who clearly don't like men

For fucks sake really?

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 15:17

Feministe,

Yes, really. Are you saying that all women like men and none have an intrinsic dislike for them? And no men are really misogynists either....

As for posters who are banned; if people deliberately flout the regulations on a regular basis, they will be banned. There are a few posters who post personal abuse on a regular basis in the full knowledge that their posts will get deleted. They then wait for others to congratulate them on these posts. Posters have even opened posts "I know this will get deleted but...". There has to be a sanction beyond deletion of individual posts and MNHQ will ban people who deliberately flout the rules and get reported. Good for them. I don't give a flying fuck about those who assert that I have a small cock and must not be able to get a shag (as has happened numerous times). I find that kind of thing quite amusing. However, when posters claim "I feel sorry for your children" or make entirely unevidenced attacks on my family, I will report them. And, yes, it has happened and I strongly suspect that I did get one poster a short ban on that basis. If a certain poster has gone too far, regardless of how popular, she deserved a ban. (I did not see the posts but if she was merely saying that men who did not do X were cowards, then it does sound a bit harsh to ban her).

If someone cannot take disagreement and has to resort to personal abuse, they do not really belong on MN.

OneMoreChap · 01/02/2013 15:19

feministefatale

in the interests of balance, it's probably fair to say there are several women who don't like some other women [cf. handmaidens], and we regularly see some women who appear not to like feminists.

Mostly, I don't like any group of whatever ilk. Individuals are fine. But groups often lead to group-think. [Note, I'm obviously part of the group of people who say they don't like groups; I don't like us, either]

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 15:32

Yes, really. Are you saying that all women like men and none have an intrinsic dislike for them? And no men are really misogynists either

I am saying the dragging out the old cliche of feminist not liking men when really they either don't like being treated like shit by men or don't really give a fuck about men is a bit pathetic.

AbigailAdams · 01/02/2013 15:40

And ample demonstration of the fact that men posting in FWR tend not to have a different perspective at all. Just a mainstream one.

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 15:47

I think women who don't focus their attention and energy on men, because men are not really a very big part of their lives, are perceived as hating men because it is so normal that women should focus their time, attention and energy on men.

Not doing so marks you out as non-conforming. The only explanation must be that you must hate men.

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 15:48

And yes, absolutely, the men who post in FWR on the whole have exactly the same viewpoint as most other men you meet everywhere outside MN.

With a few honourable exceptions of course.

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 15:50

"I am saying the dragging out the old cliche of feminist not liking men when really they either don't like being treated like shit by men or don't really give a fuck about men is a bit pathetic."

But I did not say that feminists did not like men, I said that some posters on these boards clearly did not like men and then suggested the reason why I believed it. That is not to say that feminists don't like men or a connection between them being feminists and not liking men. There are many posters here who clearly DO like men and several who clearly do not.

I did not know that any part of being a feminist was engaging in rude personal attacks on anyone who happens to be male. There are several posters who do this. They are not feminists but misandrists. Surely genuine feminists would prefer to distance themselves from these in the same sense that I, as a Jew, choose to distance myself from rabid Zionists who clearly believe that we are genuinely the chosen people and so have more rights than those around us. Yes, Jews are a discriminated against minority. On the other hand, in certain Jewish spaces, racism from Jews is fairly common. Merely being oppressed does not give you the license to oppress yourself.

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 15:50

I think women who don't focus their attention and energy on men, because men are not really a very big part of their lives, are perceived as hating men because it is so normal that women should focus their time, attention and energy on men.

Exactly, it's why amazingly lesbians are seen as man hating Confused.. it couldn't possibly be they just are not interested.

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 15:52

"Exactly, it's why amazingly lesbians are seen as man hating .. it couldn't possibly be they just are not interested."

How can you be "not interested" in 50% of humanity? Why wouldn't you be unless you thought that they or their views were somehow inferior?

If a man said he just was "not interested" in women, I suspect feminists would say that that demonstrated his misogyny and privilege.

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 15:54

I did not know that any part of being a feminist was engaging in rude personal attacks on anyone who happens to be male. There are several posters who do this. They are not feminists but misandrists. Surely genuine feminists would prefer to distance themselves from these in the same sense that I, as a Jew, choose to distance myself from rabid Zionists who clearly believe that we are genuinely the chosen people and so have more rights than those around us. Yes, Jews are a discriminated against minority. On the other hand, in certain Jewish spaces, racism from Jews is fairly common. Merely being oppressed does not give you the license to oppress yourself.

I am sure if i ever see it I will distance myself form it. Have yet to see it

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 15:56

Take off your blinkers then. I have had similar discussions with Jewish people justifying the way Eastern Jerusalem is being settled and the unfair application of the planning laws. They see it all as fair compensation for historical discrimination and don't for one minute believe a Jew could be a racist.

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 15:58

larrygrylls

Don't be deliberately obtuse. It's boring and obviously not the same as that at all. Not having any interest in a group that suffers in poverty and is sexually assaulted at appalling rates is not the same as not wanting to spend your time worrying about the rights of an over privileged class.

I certainly would not call a black person living in Mississippi in 1957 a racist for not worrying about the white people in his state.

You DO NOT get it.

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 16:00

Take off your blinkers then

you are wrong. you won't believe it because a woman is telling you it. but you will continue to argue how right you are. So I'm going to ignore you now.

Ta

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 16:04

Larry if you use the word misandrist you totally lose credibility, you do know that , don't you?

It's a word that was invented by MRA's in order to try and pretend that there's some sort of even playing field when it comes to gender based hatred.

There is no such thing as misandry. There is no centuries-long tradition of women setting up whole societies and legal systems designed to relegate men to being chattels and slaves. Misogyny isn't just an individual man's dislike of women, it's a whole system backed up by law, tradition and religion.

But hold on, I seem to remember that you've already been told this about a million times.

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 16:04

Feministe,

Glad to be ignored by someone who clearly believes it is IMPOSSIBLE for a woman to be a misandrist.

For the benefit of the rest of the board, I would like to examine your flawed analogy. UK 2013 wrt women is not Mississippi 1957 WRT blacks. If you want to use blacks as your analogy, let's look at London 2013. Yes, blacks do clearly still get discriminated against, although there are many laws against it. On the other hand, if you go into certain areas across the UK, you will find a culture where blacks openly discriminate against whites. Discrimination is, IMO, always wrong, from whichever direction it is coming.

feministefatale · 01/02/2013 16:05

I have updated my spread sheet fastdia ... you might want to get your highlighter out too

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 16:08

Fastidia,

Misandry is a useful word with a clear meaning, regardless whence it came. All words were nelogisms at one point, that is how language evolves.

"Misogyny isn't just an individual man's dislike of women, it's a whole system backed up by law, tradition and religion."

That is one definition that you choose to use. See below:

The definition in the OED is 'Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women'. This definition dates back to 2002, when the definition was updated from the previous 'Hatred of women'. Collins has 'hatred of women' and the single-volume Oxford Dictionary of English has 'the hatred of women by men'. Chambers Dictionary, quirky as ever, doesn't define it at all; it appears under the entry for miso-, along with the words misoclere (hating the clergy) and misology (hating of reason or knowledge), which are defined. A misogynist is, however, defined -- as 'a woman-hater'.

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 16:09

And again, you're ignoring the lack of POWER that black people have in society Larry.

So a few black people in London would discriminate against me if I went there because I'm white. So what? That has no impact on me at all, because I don't need to go there.

Whereas institutional racism has an impact on every black person in this country, even if they are educated, rich, etc.

Again, this has been discussed over and over again, but you don't want to get it.

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 16:10

Fastidia,

"So a few black people in London would discriminate against me if I went there because I'm white. So what? That has no impact on me at all, because I don't need to go there."

Lucky you for enjoying that economic "privilege". There are plenty of white people who are forced by economics to live in these areas. I am glad it has no impact on you though.

Beachcomber · 01/02/2013 16:12

Systematic institutionalised oppression is not the same thing as discrimination.

POC can discriminate against white people, by they don't oppress them.

Women can discriminate against men but we don't oppress them.

Basic, basic politics. And yet so hard to grasp for so many it would seem.

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 16:13

Do the black people who discriminate against them control the housing policy Larry?

Do they control the jobs? The policing? The economics of the area? The perception of their white neighbours' desirability and capability?

Thought not.

FastidiaBlueberry · 01/02/2013 16:14

Some men don't want to grasp it Beachcomber.

We've had this argument with Larry many many times.

He's a brilliant illustration of why the OP's question was valid. He comes here to tell us we're wrong. Grin

larrygrylls · 01/02/2013 16:14

"And again, you're ignoring the lack of POWER that black people have in society Larry.

So a few black people in London would discriminate against me if I went there because I'm white. So what? That has no impact on me at all, because I don't need to go there.

Whereas institutional racism has an impact on every black person in this country, even if they are educated, rich, etc.

Again, this has been discussed over and over again, but you don't want to get it. "

What you are actually driving at in this post is that you feel that if a section of society is discriminated against institutionally, it is a good thing that they can set up their own spaces where they can discriminate against others. This is directly analogous with what I was saying about East Jerusalem. Jews are globally discriminated against (true). Non Jews don't have to go to Israel (excepting those that do, of course). So it is fine for the Jews to create their own discriminatory space.

It is an argument. Personally, I find it an abhorrent one and is no way to ever make a cohesive society.