Feminists hate men

[GirlWithTheLionHeart]

What's your reply to this? I need something good to come back with for future reference.

What do I think should be done about socioeconomic and gender equality?

State redistribution of wealth from the top 30% of earners into the creation of programmes of mass, secure, meaningful and ethical employment for all men and women.

The Nordic model of prostitution.

The greatest possible regulation of - and limitation of access to - the porn industry possible.

Life imprisonment for rape.

I think it's useful to point out that hating men is different from not wanting to prioritise men's needs and feelings when working towards the liberation of women.

Men will accuse women of hating them when/if women do not cater to their every whim.
Pointing out the irrationality of this won't help much, I'm afraid. After all, any rational human being would not needs this pointed out to them in the first place.

It doesn't surprise me that you find my posts aggressive and rude, John. They are rude. I'm sure you feel I'm being aggressive as a result.

I feel your posts are patronising, rude and passive aggressive. So there you go. You insist on on every thread you are on telling us how we should argue (and of course where we are going wrong with that), what the problem with feminism is and what we should be focused on. Every thread becomes about you. You talk over women. You don't listen and feel you know best. That is incredibly rude and the fact you have the gall call me rude without any self-reflection about how your posts come across, shows how little you care about your own behaviour on these threads. What I said to you was no worse than what you have written time and time again.

"And yes, as a socialist I have been taking issue with certain tenets of socialism on another thread. No political viewpoint should be sacrosanct dogma." And there is a case in point. That isn't what I asked. But you answered it as if all I was asking was 'do you argue with Socialists'.

But you know what you can have this thread back and people can continue to try and engage you in a discussion of your choosing, if they want to waste their have the energy.

And yes that was me being passive aggressive. And a bit angry. Just so we're clear.

"Men will accuse women of hating them when/if women do not cater to their every whim. "

Because hating men isn't an actual feminist position (radical or otherwise), it's just a derailing tactic, an accusation thrown at feminists which we then waste time trying to refute.

And this link (thanks to Jessica Valenti) shows just how far back it goes:

thesocietypages.org/socimages/2015/12/28/where-do-negative-stereotypes-about-feminists-come-from/

Perhaps that would be a better answer, that it is common misrepresentation of any group of women who dare demand change.

And OP sorry for the derail. Fwiw I pretty much agree with everything Jacquetta said and SomeDyke's post above.

It's probably worth saying that when you become a feminist you don't suddenly become responsible for every woman's behaviour, whether they declare themselves a feminist or not. Feminism is not responsible for abusive women's behaviour. Feminism isn't abusive.

"Because hating men isn't an actual feminist position (radical or otherwise), it's just a derailing tactic, an accusation thrown at feminists which we then waste time trying to refute."

Yy to that!

My attitude nowadays to that question is

a) most don't

b) of those who do, so fucking what? What do men do when they hate women? They cat call us, they threaten us, they inflict violence on us, they rape us, they murder us. What do women who hate men do? They ignore them. So fucking fuckity what? Go away and solve men's hatred of women and then I'll have another think about feminists who hate men.

Scallopsgreat. I am telling people what I think about gemdered power relations as I see them. We all have our points of view and we all in a sense think we know best. We all have opinions that we believe are correct and would be gratified if others shared them. What else do you expect? Please go ahead and disagree with the CONTENT of any of my comments: I welcome such disagreements. But it is not reasonable to attack me for the fact that I have put across a view that I believe to be correct. Because that is what you are doing; that is what Buffy is doing and that is what everyone is doing.

I have been respectful. I've acknowledged agreement with certain points people have made while expressing reservations about others. So what? Am I forbidden from doing that? Can you not deal with people having a nuanced difference of opinion?

I do seem to be singled out here and I don't know why. I noticed that Lass stridently accused Buffy of being hypocritical for saying she would have mixed feelings if her son committed rape - and this was tolerated. So what am I saying that's worse?

It seems that people do not like me questioning their assumptions about the world and you would rather it was just occupied by people who shared them. Well, just say that then. Just say at the beginning of each discussion: 'if you want an intellectual debate you're not welcome'.

Not really impressed. This is an unwelcoming place where debate is discouraged and conformity insisted upon. And people are rude and just not very pleasant.

Isn't the whole of a discussion forum that people don't agree - providing they're not being personal or abusive? I just don't get it??? Why would you want everyone to agree with you? Anyway, I did ask earlier if my views were welcome and was told they were. Well, evidently they're not. Fair enough. I won't comment in any gender based Mumsnet section again because no matter how careful I try to be to express myself without offending anyone I inariably do offend people - which is truly not my wish. Maybe that is due to some problem with me that I'm oblivious to, but as I say I've never experienced anything like this before. No hard feelings, just confusion. J.

It seems that people do not like me questioning their assumptions about the world and you would rather it was just occupied by people who shared them. Well, just say that then. Just say at the beginning of each discussion: 'if you want an intellectual debate you're not welcome'.

Do you really think what you are doing is 'intellectual debate'?

"I noticed that Lass stridently accused Buffy of being hypocritical for saying she would have mixed feelings if her son committed rape - and this was tolerated. So what am I saying that's worse?"

It was not. I pointed out Lass was making the wrong comparison.

And consider whether using the word strident on a feminist board is a good idea, hmm?

Buffy, how can I not explain an argument? Would you rather I left it unexplained? And what's wrong with 'strident'?

Surely you make a point and then substantiate it? It has nothing to do with whether other people require an explanation or not; it's purely because without a substantive argument a point is a non-point.

And if you think my points are intellectually lacking then fair enough. Maybe you could explain what is intellectually lacking about them?

You remind me of a certain type of undergraduate I used to teach - the sort who was not nearly as clever as he thought he was and felt he could shore up the fundamental flaw in step one of his argument by using increasingly long words and "appeals to authority" in the form of name dropping (and misunderstanding) important philosophers and philosophical positions.

The difference was I was paid to wade through their shit and attempt to show them the error of their ways. I am not paid to go through your shit, and am thus now at liberty to ignore your posts (does happy dance).

Fair enough Matilida. What flaws are there in my arguments? Or, as you say, you can just ignore them

john

Just wondering if you've noticed how the OP has moved from its original discussion and has now become a discussion with your views on something else being discussed?

As opposed to the actual OP?

(Ironically this post reinforces that)

I'll bite John

Buffy posts -

^So if I were to appear in a group of people discussing how racism affects them, and ask them to stop doing that and acknowledge that there are indeed exceptions, not all white people are twats, etc - which I would not! But if I did - then I would have just made the conversation all about my feelings, which while uncomfortable aren't likely to cause me material problems, and stopped them from talking about the issue that's affecting their lives. Which is quite probably causing them material problems.

This is why, when people appear in feminist discussions to point out - however helpfully - that exceptions exist... well, we know they do. But the exceptions aren't the ones causing the problems are they, so why would we want to give loads of time and attention to reassuring them that we recognise their exceptionality? It's not hatred, it's just not giving loads of positive attention to men who might feel that loads of positive attention is their due. ^

and you respond with -

Buffy it does make sense. As the discussion concerned the issue of feminists hating men it seemed worthwhile to make a point about kyriarchy and that power relations are not simply binary - but kind of multi-binary. Globally men have more power, but a man living on the streets has less power than Beyonce. I know this point is almost too obvious to make, but the point stands that you can't reasonably tell that specific man to 'check his privilege' whereas you certainly could reasonably say that to, I dunno, Hugh Heffner. Or thinking about it, you could tell the homeless man to check his privilege if he were assaulting other homeless women, but presuming that he isn't he has less aggregate power than many women privileged by socioeconomic background.

It's like you didn't even read her post. She addressed this. Clearly and articulately. You started the post by telling her she was wrong and then didn't add anything, didn't challenge her point. You simply reaffirmed the point she already addressed as if you were imparting some wisdom.

John- I don't think there are any flaws in your arguments. I mostly agree with you. It's just....we've done that bit. We know about individual/class. It's just taken as read. We've been talking and thinking about this stuff for ages. I genuinely don't understand why you feel the need to explain it to me.

Girlwithalionheart said she welcomed my contributions to the thread. I don't think feminist analysis is simplistic, I think some of it is.

I personally do not understand how you can reasonably answer the question of whether feminists are legitimate to hate men without deconstructing some liberal asumptions. Well you can - but to what point? What sort of answer will you get? Yes? No? Sometimes? Maybe? If you're just looking at this through the lens of liberal identity politics (which is what I'm critical of, not feminism at all really) then you'll just go round in circles. If gender is a construct then it has to be more positively reconstructed, and that can only happen in a new economic paradigm.

I'm not a Marxist per se but I do think power does generally come down to economics. And if people do just see the world in terms of individual identities rather than economic forces then there will be these unresolvable arguments about whether we should hate all men or some men or see men as just social constructs; or, indeed, whether we should be wary of all Muslims or just radical Muslims. At present, we have people in a rampant laissez faire economy with no sense of identity available to them other than that of gender or ethno-nationalism. But if men and women (or indeed Muslims and non-Muslims) are working together in factories or businesses or whatever, all paid the same decent wage, all unionised and fully pensioned and with a place in the world, with equal numbers of men and women at the top, then you will still have problems but considerably fewer. You can't, for instance, have parity of pay without a properly regulated labour market in which principles of equality for ALL are enshrined. But if you have a completely demoralised economy (as we do) , predicated on nothing but self-interest and competition (along with the mass objectification of women and an out of control sex industry) then feminism is fucked, multiculturalism is fucked, everything progressive is fucked. And you do meet some feminists (not you guys) who want equality to magically appear just from deconstructing novels and making 'feminist porn' and writing blogs about 'slutwalks' - and some, thinking state power is patriatchal, vote for governments who are ideologically opposed to equality in any form.

So that's my piece. I'll end it there. Without an economic or a moral analysis you will not be able to resolve these arguments purely through recourse to liberal nostrums of individual choice, identity and freedom.

Toodle pip.

Strident is a word used widely in a derisory sense about women/feminists, John. Like hysterical.

The thread wasn't about "whether feminists were legitimate to hate men", John. It was about how to respond to such random accusations. It was a request for practical help.

If you read and respond to the posts that are actually there (see the above analysis of your response to Buffy), then you will get on much better.

Tatty bye.

"Without an economic or a moral analysis you will not be able to resolve these arguments purely through recourse to liberal nostrums of individual choice, identity and freedom."

Haha! Case in point not responding to any of the actual posts, just pontificating at random!

basil I love you, I wish you'd posted this on the starting to hate men thread:

What do men do when they hate women? They cat call us, they threaten us, they inflict violence on us, they rape us, they murder us. What do women who hate men do? They ignore them. So fucking fuckity what? Go away and solve men's hatred of women and then I'll have another think about feminists who hate men.

Amazing!

I like Basil's reply and the one about not catering to their every whim.

Also John's v short post:

JohnJ80

Meph: I have been hurt by women, but never in the name of feminism. I've never been threatened with violence by a feminist.

Really good to use in future. I'll ask 'has a feminist ever attacked you, threatened you or raped you?' Because the answer will mostry likely be a no. Then I will point out I've had all those things done to me and more by men.