I'm starting to hate men

[Mamaka]

I posted this on relationships but didn't get any response:

I've noticed recently that I've become more and more anti men - I think since having my first child. So many factors that I could mention and probably many deep rooted issues contributing to this but the long and short of it is why do women have to suffer and sacrifice at every turn?!

I don't really want to feel like this. I have a son who I want to bring up/am bringing up to be a feminist but I'm worried about how my hateful feelings towards men are going to rub off on my dc.

I suppose I am asking if there is a way I can combat these feelings and start to feel more positively towards them.

Notquite - big respect for your efforts on the other thread. Just read your final couple of posts and now feeling so cross that women can be subjected to all that SHIT that you (and I) have been through and then express their feelings and opinions about it and then be screamed at that YOU ARE SEXIST. Oh and you don't understand sexism.

These last posts to John are cheering me right up though

Thank you Mamaka, I appreciate it that you said that. I'm feeling a little bruised, but I'm glad I gave it a shot.

Just reread that thread, wow.

Talking in the abstract here, but it should be remembered that feelings about a group of people aren't a crime. The breach of the Equalities Act happens when people are treated differently on the basis of a characteristic.

That's why I don't understand what the MGTOW group are trying to prove. If some straight men want to opt out of relationships, great, that's their choice. Plenty of straight women I know don't think relationships with men are worth the candle either: weariness, not hatred.

Of course those women will hire men, work with them, let them into the places they run. They will not threaten them online, catcall them or otherwise manifest their weariness at men.

I'm not putting this very well, I don't think. I'm grasping to express that many on your two threads are outraged about your feelings, Mamaka, without stopping to find out what actions these have brought about (which is what ultimately impacts the men you encounter).

So far, you've talked about standing your ground more with your DH and about your DH with your mum. Doesn't sound like any of your actions are sexist!!

I have a family member like John. He sucks the energy from rooms.

Jacquetta: I have written to my MP about this (for what that's worth). When I said feminists I did not mean you people or all feminists (who of course include anti-porn activists like Gail Dines); only those ones who complain about page three but at the same time object to the governmental regulation of internet pornography. They are hypocrites, frankly.

"only those ones who complain about page three but at the same time object to the governmental regulation of internet pornography."

Which ones are these?

And what is their argument based on? On the philosophy of porn, or on how the internet actually works?

And if you mean a subset of people, surely this thread has shown you that you should say that.

I have seen it argued on here, by niceguy2 IIRC, that regulation in the form proposed a few years ago, was simply not possible technically. If you do a search , I'm sure you'll find the discussion.

Thanks for the apology regarding minimising the page 3 campaign. Oh wait, you didn't give one.

Anyone else enjoying that we are basically running two threads in parallel - the mamaka support thread and the JohnJ thread?!

JohnJ

The #nomorepage3 campaign targeted the publishers and owner of The Sun. They didn't, AFAIK, ask government to intervene. I believe their goal was to get The Sun itself to acknowledge that "boobs aren't news" and to stop printing the pictures as the right thing to do.

One of the things with the NMP3 campaign that those who critique it, thinking there are bigger issues, often ignore is that it was a very simple campaign with ultimately a single target who had the power to act. Campaigns on FGM etc are very important and governments in relevant areas are now explicitly banning the act, which is great, but lots more work is needed to implement the rulings. By contrast, once the Sun decided to drop p3, it was dropped. Mission accomplished. Meaning those involved in the campaign were free to focus on other areas of concern.

"I'm not putting this very well, I don't think. I'm grasping to express that many on your two threads are outraged about your feelings, Mamaka, without stopping to find out what actions these have brought about (which is what ultimately impacts the men you encounter). "

I think you are expressing fine. This so called "hatred" of men seems to manifest itself in things like avoiding men where possible, not taking any shit from them, perhaps telling them to fuck off occasionally and presenting a more woman-centric view of the world to your DC. Not raping, killing, abusing and discriminating against them.

What did Atwood say: Men fear women will laugh at them, women fear men will kill them. Amply demonstrated I think.

I think JohnJ80 is making a fundamental mistake in telling feminists what to do. It's a bit like saying "the medical profession should be looking for a cure for cancer instead of treating arthritis" or "science should be studying dinosaurs not dandelions".

Feminism isn't just a little club of people meeting in the treehouse on Saturdays and deciding what to combat next.

There's a root cause which is the notion (sometimes conscious, often not) that women are less than men, and aren't entitled to the same rights, opportunities and freedoms as men. And there are a zillion symptoms of that cause, such as Page 3, FGM, pay inequality, trafficking, DV, gender roles presented to youngsters, etc etc.

All feminists (I guess) want the root cause and its effects to end.

I accidentally pressed post too soon there but I think I made the point without needing a punchline

Jacquetta. I am not saying the campaign against Page 3 was wrong exactly, I just don't understand why it was a priority. While Busty Denise from Tewksbury on page 3 of a national newspaper might be objectionable, it seems odd that barely legal teen gets banged by 10 big dicks or whatever, pumped out to vast global audiences, does not receive anything like the same attention.

And of course it is technically possible to ban these things. Until recently you would have found it very difficult to find a Beatle's track online. So if free downloads of songs can be prohibited so as not to dent the income of mega-rich rock aristocrats, then porn can be blocked. Their just isn't the political will because the revenue generated by the porn industry is vast.

I am sure there were many people involved in the page 3 campaign who also support the government censorship of porn. And that's fine. But there are others who didn't.

The Sun did capitulate to public pressure, but government intervention will be required with porn. What are you going to do? Say to some Russian porn baron sitting back and making millions: 'excuse me but I think what you do is degrading to women and should just stop'. Censorship is the only answer.

What I do want to add is that it's much more complex than simple cause and effect. It's a self feeding thing. I mean the root cause feeds the symptoms and then of course the symptoms add to the root cause. So the notion that women are less then men causes Page 3, and then the presence of Page 3 reinforces the notion that women are less than men. For example.

JohnJ80 you struggle to understand why Page 3 was "a priority". Can you understand why for some doctors fixing broken arms is a priority, notwithstanding their awareness that AIDS is a massive problem?

(I could have said "even though" or "despite", but I know you like longer words)

You don't understand why it's a problem because you're a man and it has no impact on your life.

Page 3 and pornography both have negative impacts on women.

Also, we're allowed to focus on whatever we fucking feel like. We don't need your permission or your blessing to do either.

Fuck off with your telling women what to do.

Polidori: I am not dictating what people should do (or at least my phraseology was clumsy and did not mean to). Just pointing out logical and ethical inconsistencies. All the things you mention are very very important issues, but if not framed by the right terms of discussion no logical solution can be reached.

Take pay inequality: I recently read a feminist (can't remember who) say that women should feel more confident shouting louder for pay rises and bonuses in the corporate sector. But really, should ANYONE, post-2008, be receiving huge bonuses if they're already on something like 80K a year? That's just greed. Rather than female pay in those sectors being brought up, male pay should be BROUGHT DOWN to the female level. See, if you don't think of that discussion in a wider discussion about kind of economic system is best for us all, it doesn't make sense; you just end unwittingly complicit in the same desocialized economy that does such a disservice to women. Because of course, should not the women who clean the offices of Goldman-Sachs for a pittance receive far more attention from gender equalitarians than the few privileged women who inhabit them? One would think.

Out of interest, you speak of all these terrible abuses as symptoms of a root cause. What is the root cause?

I've mentioned it a number of times John, if you'd do me the courtesy of reading my posts. It's the notion (sometimes conscious, often not) that women are less than men and deserving of, or entitled to, fewer rights, opportunities and freedoms than men. IMHO. Others might have an entirely different view.

I think porn has negative impacts on everyone Lilac. And there are men (and male children) who are exploited and degraded by pornographers too. You can do what you like. Just offering an opinion.

Okay (and I agree), but how should that root problem be addressed?

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to answer my question to you while you ask me yours?

The question of addressing it is massively complex. To continue the medical analogy, the root cause is the fact that the human body is vulnerable to injury and disease. How, in your wise opinion, should the medical profession be addressing that?

You seem to be fixated on the (in my view wholly irrational) idea that feminism as a body should choose one campaign and do that. Why do you hold that view?

Polidori first question: I don't see how the analogy works. The medical profession might tell people to eat healthily, refrain from smoking and wear a helmet when cycling. How do you think feminists should address the root problem of male domination though?

Polidori second question: I don't hold that view. I spoke to a number of people who supported the Page 3 campaign but were against any censorship of online material that was infinitely more offensive and prevalent. I find that view inconsistent.

The analogy in my question to you was to address your inability to understand why for some people Page 3 was a priority. My question, as yet unanswered, was "do you understand why for some doctors fixing broken arms is a priority even though they know AIDS is a massive problem?"

Can you name a single feminist who both supported NMP3 and also opposed reducing internet porn?

Also, you seem to be trying now to pretend that that (alleged) inconsistency is your only problem with NMP3. But in fact you did say you reckon feminists should not be bothering about Page 3.