Can I talk about men ?

[Blistory]

In light of the recent threads and the perception that some feminists hate men, can anyone confirm that what they really feel about men as a class ? And whether they believe that feminism harms men ?

I see more disrespect for men on the general boards, the 'men just don't see dust', 'I'm as well doing it myself as he makes a mess of it' 'bless them, they just don't get it' 'women are naturally the better parent' types of threads. To be fair, those posts usually attract rightful condemnation but I can't understand why just because feminism demands more of men and expects more of men, feminism is seen as disrespectful or dismissive of men. Surely it's the opposite ?

In the interests of honesty, there are individual men I like, admire, love or respect. There are individual men whom I trust but it has to be said, not unreservedly.

Men, as a class, on the other hand, I fear. I fear the stranger in the dark alley, I fear the man driving the taxi, I fear the men attending conferences with me who decide to retire to their rooms at the same time. Not because I think they are definitely going to harm me but because I equally fear that if someone does harm me, I will be judged for not recognising the danger and protecting myself. This, I blame, not on men but on a patriarchial society that tells me men are predatory and women are victims. I blame it not on men but on a rape culture which reinforces the attitude that women are there for the taking. The only individual men I blame are the ones who rape, kill and assault but I start with the premise that those individual men are not identifiable to me therefore I should be cautious of all. Man hating ? I don't know.

In terms of feminism, I've always been quite comfortable with the idea that whilst not an aim, the accepted by product of feminism will be that men's lives are also enhanced. The prevailing notions that men have to be strong, assertive, to be the bread winner, emotionally detached, not to cry, to be able to physically protect themselves are all damaging to men, particularly those who don't conform to the stereotype. I firmly believe that while feminism seeks to break down barriers, the result of it will be that men also benefit significantly. And I welcome that. If feminism was simply about achieving a position for women that significantly put men in jeopardy, I wouldn't be supportive of it and I don't know many feminists who would.

Given that men who suffer under patriarchy will benefit from feminism, I see no need to actively campaign for men's rights so I'm entirely comfortable with focusing on women. For men who won't benefit, I'm sorry but I just can't shed any tears for someone who has had all the advantages and is now being asked simply to share them.

I've asked, not to be controversial, but because I didn't want to derail any existing threads that are, quite rightly, about putting women first. And I've been genuinely perturbed by the current threads that insist there is a genuine and strong sense of men being hated by some feminists on here. Is it just misunderstanding of language, a lack of understanding of feminism or am I so blinkered by my beliefs that I can't see it ?

[ApocalypseThen]

If men as a class is wrong, then how can feminists describe patterns of behaviour that need to be challenged? Some things are too common, others are too built into the system, to ignore. If we can't describe them or hint at who the perpetrators may be, we're not actually going to be able to tackle it. Men as a class may have to just deal with that.

[PacificWerewolf]

Well, we class all sorts of parts of society as a 'class', don't we: there's 'class' itself, there's 'teenaged mothers' or 'bus drivers' or 'OAPs'.
I don't see why 'men' should be any different as far as sociological analysis goes?

[museumum]

But most of us would object if somebody said "teenage mothers as a class do [bad thing]" and say but you can't lump them all in together, make assumptions, be prejudiced....
I suppose I feel my challenges are to the system, not to men as a class. The system benefits men, but I'm one of those who also believes that in other ways it harms men too (in lesser ways than women obviously).
I admit I know very little directly about domestic violence etc and my feminism has mainly been around women and careers in western countries but I feel the culprit is societal structures and that men range from in denial to complicit but still I see the oppressor as the system rather than "men" (some women are complicit, even knowingly so).

[Damsili]

For men who won't benefit, I'm sorry but I just can't shed any tears for someone who has had all the advantages and is now being asked simply to share them.

Yes, it was glib, but I was responding to your negative paraphrasing of my post and it was entirely intended.

But yes, you have said you don't give a shit. I've copied your position above. If you look at that sentence, you separate out individuals and then refer to a whole class. For instance, let's say that those individuals are boys that education are failing or men subject to dv. You won't shed tears for those, because - as a class - men have "all the advantages". This happens. Those boys and those men have their experiences minimised. Google a news article about men subject to dv and somewhere in there you'll often find a feminist saying "yes, but on the whole this affects women more..."

[Damsili]

It's not addressing men 'as a class' per se. It's taking something that is a minority behaviour within that class and then using it.

Bus drivers spit out the window at passing cyclists. Oh, that's class analysis, so it's fine.

[Enjoyingmycoffee1981]

No jacket.. I don't get your point.

For what it's worth, I am never I'm this section of mumsnet. It came up on Most Active and I was intrigued.

You would be horrified of my situation. SAHM and very traditional roles here. So I'm not referring to my father, husband or brother from the perspective of a feminist. Just as a woman.

[Blistory]

Are you aware of how dismissive and rude your posting style is ?

You have misrepresented my position yet again. Did you forget to quote the part of my post where I stated that I wouldn't be supportive of feminism if it put women above men to the jeopardy of men ?

Are you aware that you state your position as factual and ridicule those who simply state their opinion ?

You seem keen for feminism to reflect on the errors it has made and appear, to me, to ascribe no blame to anything or anyone, other than feminists getting it wrong.

That's not debate. Your posts are shutting down and dismissing views that disagree with you own views.

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder...

[PacificWerewolf]

'Bus drivers spit at passing cyclists' does not equal 'All bus drivers are disgusting spitters targeting cyclists'.
It may be a useful statement to plan an anti-spitting campaign.

Generalisations are always dangerous, but sometimes useful and IMO have their place is many context: planning of services, sociological analysis, etc.
They rarely work when extrapolated to individuals.

[Damsili]

It's interesting that it's always people that criticize the prevailing view on FWR that are accused of being rude, dismissive and seeking to silence. Strangely, when it's the other way around it's called 'not suffering fools gladly' or similar.

You are most probably right. However, as someone that first addressed me by paraphrasing my posts into a unrepresentative position in order to mock it, it could be that you're part of the combative equation?

Quite happy, however, to apologise for being a little feisty, step back, read your posts again and start afresh.

My response to your OP is, yes, I think that feminism can have harmful effects on men. Namely:

• It sometimes reduces a whole bunch of diverse and generally blameless people into a homogenous class represented by its worst examples.
  
• It suggests any male member of society is responsible for those worst examples. "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." This responsibility is not given to women (because feminists are women and so, as a class, they are doing enough already)
  
• It minimises problems suffered by individual men when women's problems (as a class) are greater in number.
  
• It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.
  
  As I've said before, one needs to look at these in context. Feminism on the whole is an undeniably good thing. Many of its proponents, however, are so hung up on what happens on a class level that the more complex dynamics beneath that are over-looked. Additionally, the undeniably foul abuse that MRAs etc can inflict has led to a seige mentality where all criticism is dismissed. As I said, it's an impossibility that there won't be theories that are wrong, or unintended negative consequences.
  
  Perhaps I've lost track of what you were asking; I'm just trying to provide my answer. I'm trying to explain why I think feminism can be construed as man-hating by someone not positively engaged in feminist theory. I hestitate to quote you now, but you said that feminism was just asking men to be better. Do you not see how this implies that every man, if not the actual perpetrator of violence and discrimination, is somehow responsible for it in a way that female members of society aren't?

[PetulaGordino]

almost every man (note i say almost) benefits indirectly from the privilege that comes, in huge part, from the violence of other men. that is not necessarily the minority (i hope, i don't know for sure) that is actually currently perpetrating that violence, but the violence of centuries that has socialised women into positions of fear and oppression. that fear doesn't have to be raw, like being trapped by a man with a knife, but that underlying awareness that women don't know which men around them may be violent, what may trigger that violence, and they will often alter their behaviour accordingly to minimise any risk that they may be a target, whilst also knowing that there may be nothing they can do. this is not explicit stuff - this is socialised, instilled from an early age. men who are not violent and would not even consider being so probably wouldn't even notice that alteration, but many will benefit as a result as their voices are better heard, their needs more easily met and their share of resources greater. therefore there are many men who have a stake in the status quo being maintained, as it benefits them so greatly, and you see their reluctance to cede privilege when they buy into myths about rape, dv, pay and status gaps in the workplace, etc

[ApocalypseThen]

It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners and give us a good reason why women should withdraw from the workplace to be treated like that. Women need economic independence because the other work we do has no value at all.

[Blistory]

Thanks for replying.

I do think that sometimes posters are simply incompatible given their different posting styles and when that detracts from the discussion at hand, there's little point in having the same circular argument.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with conflicting views, just with the way in which they are sometimes stated.

[Damsili]

It puts men out of work. Tough one this, but more two-income families means less jobs.

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners and give us a good reason why women should withdraw from the workplace to be treated like that. Women need economic independence because the other work we do has no value at all.

"Go and have yourself a little read...." Genius comment ApocalypseNow! The ability to take one statement and then extend it into something entirely else before roundly abusing the poster is something I was just talking about, so thank you for so ably demonstrating it.

So many things. Apparently I'm suggesting women shouldn't enter the workplace... Many men are contemptuous of their wives... Childcare has no value... seriously, are you actually an MRA pretending?

[Damsili]

Very true Blistory. The internet's a poor means of communication. But, for all that, even in a combative exchange, there is value to be had.

Night.

[Nojacketrequired]

Coffee, my post quoting you was not to mock or ridicule. I am sorry if it read that way.

My point was that your situation - that of being surrounded my stable, non-raping, non-violent men - is remarkably common, even amongst the regulars on FWR. And yet once we get outside this little bubble, these men morph into a violent, oppressive, dangerous mass.

There are a lot of FWR regulars who will tell you that their male partners are generally decent, supportive men who treat women as equals, who see inequality in our society, and who are aware that some things in society favour men. You'd have to be blind not to see that, frankly. You will get outliers in any group, but I believe that most men want a fairer, more equal society. Attitudes will change between generations, but I believe my children's generation is generally more tolerant and inclusive, and less inclined to prejudice that the one before it, as we were when compared to our parents.

[Nojacketrequired]

Go and have yourself a little read around and see the contempt with which many men treat stay at home partners...

Actually, this was a fairly common complaint on the thread about a thread about a thread. Except a lot of SAHMs felt that they suffered this prejudice from posters on FWR. It seems that there is little love for women who bring up families from anyone

[PetulaGordino]

nojacketrequired, your post did come across as ridicule i'm afraid

think of the self-selection bias in both this section and in threads like this, and also of the fact that those women, feminists included, who are not happy with their relationships are far less likely to post openly about it. this is such a limited sample and it's easy to see how it would tend towards women who are in positive relationships and are in a position to be able to post about that. i hope you are right in your assertion that most men are the same, but IME there are many many men who while they pay lip service to the idea of equality, are reluctant to make any changes that cause them discomfort, and in reality many are actually abusive in varying degrees

please don't talk about this as a "bubble". it is such a classic criticism of this board that the women who post here venture nowhere else on MN, nor anywhere on the rest of the internet and apparently don't engage with anyone in RL either

[PetulaGordino]

did you miss cailin's much praised post on one of the other threads, which summed up the way most regulars on FWR feel about the role and status of SAHMs?

[OutsSelf]

The men-as-a-class thing works for me in cases where my speaking of men as a class will not contribute to their marginalization or keep them from accessing goods and services the need. So saying men as a class are violent towards other men does not lead to them being unable to access positions of.power etc. Whereas saying men as a class enjoy violence might mean that they were consequently less able to access counselling after violent encounters they were traumatised by. I'd apply the same standard to any as-a-class statement. That is my personal standard.

However there is the wider context in which my speech about men as a class would not really be equivalent to a man speaking about women as a class. Because any statement I might make about men, which any individual man might feel misrepresented by, is not further amplified by the fact that I have the full weight of patriarchy pulling on my side. A man feeling misrepresented by my statements has greater access to the institutions of discourse that could redress my misrepresentation, which I am in any case relatively less.able to enforce, than a man making the same statements about women. I have less access to redress, so people seeking to represent me in their class analysis must consider this. Of course, such considerations are complicated by issues such as class, ethnicity, etc. but I think these are more or less the standard ideas around class analysis

I.recognise the objections people have to the use of class analysis but find it incredibly useful. If individual men are enraged by statements such as "men as a class are violent" good, I say. Bring it on, because that to me, is the rage I feel as a feminist when I consider male violence. The smart trick, of course, is to redirect the rage of that man away from the speaker of that statement, and to where it rightfully belongs - the men who perpetuate violence. I, ahem, haven't always managed that second stage. But I think that that flash of indignation and rage is not to be avoided, I think it has the potential to radicalise men to the cause of fighting the patriarchy. This is also a.personal standard, my personal idea - it's not (afik) a common feminist strategy.

[Damsili]

Men as a class are violent. However, the majority if that class is not. So how do the percentages work? Women as a class are violent too, no, if there only needs to be violence within the class?

Or maybe it's just comparative? In which case, women as a class are obsessed by their appearance. See the problem?

[alAswad]

Damsili I like your post of 19.07, it's something I've been thinking for a long time. It's late now but I'll try and remember to post my own response to the OP in the morning - just wanted to say that.

[Dervel]

Simply put patriarchy is a problem, and although all patriarchs are men, not all men are patriarchs.

[messyisthenewtidy]

"As I said before, talking about MRAs in the context of women's place in society has comparisons with talking about Britain First in the context of discussing immigration in the UK."

I have to disagree. Whilst MRAs are, admittedly, an activist minority they espouse views that can be seen to a lesser extent in the male population at large.

To give an example: a very lovely guy I know once gave me the "I don't mind women having equality but then they want men to open doors for them". This is such a trite attitude, straight out of the books of MRAs yet it was spoken by a man who I considered to be a good'un.

I still DO consider him to be a good one. I consider my dad to be a good one even though he thinks men have evolved to be better at Science. That's the point. It's not like MRAs are an isolated fringe group spouting views that the majority of men unequivocally disagree with. They are the extreme vocalisation of what many ordinary men and women actually think. They are the views of the many people who have reacted negatively to the successes of feminism, the backlashers. The "I'm all for women's equality but it's gone too far" people. Those people aren't a fringe.

Now it most definitely shouldn't be taken from that that I hate men. I don't. Men, like women, are merely products of the society that they are brought up in. And IMO it is the society and its norms that feminists try to tackle. Once that changes men will change too.

Men as individuals who benefit from and perpetuate patriarchy without being aware that they are doing so are not bad. The same goes for women. I consider my mum to be a pioneering feminist (within the context of my conservative family) but even she comes out with some corkers of which MRAs would be proud. MRAs may exist on a fringe in terms of their activism but their thoughts are plucked from the everyday fabric of our society's thinking. That is entirely the point.

In your analogy you spoke of Britain First. They may be extremists but they reflect strands of thinking on immigration that are found to lesser extents in society at large (how else do explain the rise in popularity of UKIP?) Same with MRAs. And if feminists over-refer to them it is probably to stop ourselves from focussing on the fact that their views are so widespread.

[Beachcomber]

Do people who reject the notion of men as a class also reject the notion of women as a class?

Would you reject statements such as "women as a class are more likely to be poor" or "women as a class are more likely to be subject to domestic violence" or "women as a class are overrepresented in prostitution" or "women as a class are underrepresented in government/positions of economical and political power" ?

So are we all individuals, with no status awarded by society according to sex, and the above are nothing to do with class, but simply coincidence or down to women being a bit crap?

If men as a class do not exist (or are beyond analysis), then logically so are women. Game over feminism.

[messyisthenewtidy]

"women as a class are obsessed by their appearance. See the problem?"

But women as a class ARE more obsessed with their appearance. The questions feminism asks are: Why is that? What forces in society cause girls to value their appearance more than boys do? And ultimately what can we do to counteract that and free women from the confidence-draining obsession with looks?

That is why feminism is good for men. That is why feminists hate men the least of all. Because they ask exactly the same questions of the fact that "men as a class are more violent than women" and come up with answers that will ultimately liberate men (as a class of course) from the violence they perpetuate on each other.