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.

Hi Jacquetta. I did not say that feminists are against relationships. I said that SOME feminists reject a loving relationship between men and women as heteronormative. Of course others don't.

And of course I think all those things you list are good. Where have I suggested otherwise? Can people please stop imputing views to me to the effect that I object to all feminists and think women should not have help escaping abusive relationships. I have no idea where you are getting all this from.

"feminism and sexual liberationism (very broadly speaking) rejected love and commitment as foundations of western civilisation. "

"What feminism should perhaps have done is foster an evolution of monogamous love into something more equitable and progressive. Instead, it got rid of it all."

No, I can't think where I'm getting it from.

Yes Jaquetta I agree feminists should be fixated on those things. I was responding to another poster who opined that we SHOULDN'T be seeing everything through the lens of sexuality - and I kind of agreed with that too. Please people.

" heteronormative"

This is a descriptor. To use it as a phrase is not a rejection of heterosexual relationships. HTH.

You utter trombone

I can't say how much I love this phrase

Well played, Lady Rivers!

John, I think the first principle you might need to grapple with in your quest to understand feminism, is that feminists and women generally do not require your (or any man's) input or approval. Maybe have a think about that?

Jacquetta, I said 'very broadly speaking'. Throughout this thread I have repeatedly stated that I am talking about liberal, sexual-liberationist post-feminism - certainly not socialist feminism or even all radical feminism. I know not all feminists are pro-porn or anything else. And I was talking about the cultural theory side of things - certainly not the active attempts o fight oppression and patriarchal abuse. That is not my business. But how feminism impacts on a cultural understanding of gender does involve me.

Would you like to address the point where you blamed feminism for 11 year olds asking for anal? Could you point to the liberal feminists who advocated that?

Oh my goddess. You just blamed feminism for this? You utter trombone.

YES Jaqetta! I had a whole thread asking for non genitalia insults and my favourite was shit gibbon, but trombone is way better!! Thank you so much

I'm not opposed to people being in heteronormative relationships. I have been in one for over twenty years.

I'm opposed to heteronormativity being the norm for the whole of society, when it is clear that very many women are not interested in it.

Freshwater: I am talking about patriarchy and how men relate to women when all the old certainties have gone. If this thread was about female experience of sexual trauma or domestic abuse I honest to god would not be on it. But as it does concern men, whether men are inherently incapable of equitable relations with women and how women are to think about men I, as a man, joined the discussion. Since then I have been arguing that some feminism has got very muddled on the topic of gender identity due to its failure to adapt to a very fractured economic landscape - chiefly its co-option by market forces. I do also believe SOME feminists say some very muddled things that are damaging and confusing to girls of my daughters age.

As feminists rightly say: women are human too, and as human beings they can get things wrong. If you insulate feminism from any kind of criticism at all then that becomes very divisive and unhelpful.

I have to say I have been consistently polite and would appreciate people not bing angry and rude. I also have agreed with much of what has been said.

Surely we can disagree while being respectful?

It is not polite to blame feminists for 11 year olds asking girls for anal.

HTH.

You seem to be putting together a number of separate concepts as if by grouping them that somehow constitutes a coherent argument.

I have tried to engage with what you've written to try and understand what it is you are trying to say.

Underneath your various concepts you seem to still be holding to the basic sexist assumption that women somehow owe men or society in general free emotional, domestic and sexual labour.

Good point almond pudding. Of course it should not be obligatory. I guess I just mean love (as opposed to sex or money or whatever else) should have SOMETHING to do with heterosexual relations for those who want them. I think love can evolve into something better. It doesn't have to be this choice between oppressive heterosexual monogamy and a rejection of monogamous lovre altogether.

Dominating the discussion is not polite.

Telling feminists what feminists think and mansplaining feminism and economic forces is not polite.

Being patronising is not polite

I could go on

John you have not been polite. If this was a real life conversation I would feel very threatened by you. And you seem totally unaware of how you come across, which is sad and worrying, but not that uncommon for a man who thinks women should be quiet and listen.

Jacquetta: if you re-read my comment you will see that I blame a culture of hyper permissive sexual behaviour on a confluence of neoliberal capitalism, the new left and SOME libfems who think loveless, utilitarian sex is empowering. Of course that is by no stretch all feminists. I am trying to be as fastidious as I can in not tarring a vast body of thought with the same brush.

Funny, that. What with rape, porn, FGM, child marriage (aka state sanctioned abuse), prostitution all being issues related to sexual politics and all being feminist issues

These are issues for everyone who cares about basic human decency. There is no requirement to be a feminist ( nor for that matter a socialist, which a couple of posters have suggested feminism should align with ) to see they are wrong or to speak up about them.

Where have I said women should be quite and listen? If you want to criticise anything I have said then please do. But you dont: you just keep telling me that I'm mansplaining.

What have I said that you disagree with? Where have I been rude? I agree very much with much of what almond has said. If I have seemed patronising I do not mean to be.

And I certainly do not think women owe men sexual labour. My entire argument rests on the premise that no one owes anyone else sexual or economic labour. I am against utilitarianism in all its forms. I oppose sexual objectification and exploitation in all its forms.

I have been sexually abused myself and know how it feels to be dehumanised and thingified forever.

almond I am struggling with the idea of bringing up a child outside of the single parent or two parent dynamic.

Two parents often have to work very hard in order to make sure their parenting is consistent. 50/50 care by divorced parents is often not the best option for children essentially for this reason (I think). Am I right in thinking you are suggesting more women would choose to bring up children in a commune-type environment or have I totally got the wrong end of the stick?

Single parenting makes more sense to me and I can understand how society would move towards that dynamic.

I am quite conservative in that I think the best environment to conceive children is a stable loving man/woman relationship (I apologise to people that offends). I realise that doesn't sit well with a lot of assisted fertility let alone non-heteronormative relationships. However I'm still developing my thinking on this as my upbringing has been very conservative so I realise I am constrained by not knowing what I don't know - namely just how wide the spectrum of relationships and families can be.

Buffy, apart from some comments from almond, I haven't really had any criticisms of the substance of my argument. I have been called a 'trombone' though
Some of the comments have seemed unnecessarily hostile.
I think it is perfectly possible to disagree with others while being respectful. If I have seemed impolite or patronising that honestly was not my intention.

Respectfully, J

Here you go, John. Some data to put in your 'who tries to fuck younger than themselves' pipe for smoking.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dating-website-reveals-age-women-6490993

Calling someone a trombone is less rude than blaming the group with which you are trying to communicate for 11 year olds asking girls for anal sex.

Any further data on that one?

and SOME libfems who think loveless, utilitarian sex is empowering

Do they think it is "empowering" ? Or rather that actually women think that there can be times in your life when it is perfectly possible to have fun, no strings attached sex without having to worry about getting pregnant or being called a slut. It's not a question of being "empowered".

As an aside , I'm so fed up of the overuse of that word.

I'm rather disturbed by the underlying tone and implication that sex is only good or permissible in a long term, loving relationship. (You may not have said those exact words but that is how it's coming across)