Men bashing

[PirateQueenie]

Hi all,

I don't have a real purpose to this thread other than to just voice my confusion and possibly hear some other opinions.

I would identify as feminist - although for want of a better word, I would rather say I'm an egalitarian. I enjoy reading these threads, and comment on some. But what really disheartens me is all the man-bashing Ive seen. I have a male partner who is my world ♥ wonderful male friends and family members, and when I read some of the things on here I can't help but feel very defensive of the men in my life.

Is this the new wave of feminism? Or am I missing something? When I was growing up (with my mum as an avid feminist), I never heard "men this" or "men that" it was always about how women can strengthen and empower themselves WITHOUT putting men down.

Guardian you articulated much better than I did what I was clumsily trying to say!
Newdaddie and homity "The I have sons so I can't hate men argument reeks."
A couple of comments like this I'm unsure if directed at my post. For clarification I said nothing of the kind!!
As an admittedly ignorant and sheltered woman in this area I've appreciated reading the constructive kind and positive feedback and it's given me food for thought

It's a sad irony that those working hardest to promote liberty often become extremely controlling; there is ample evidence of this on a great many of these threads.

Not this one again - I'm a feminist. I don't care how you live your life, whether you paint your nails or wear a hoodie or whatever else you do.

However, I do probably have opinions on whether some of these decisions and choices are feminist. NOTE, as the Christians say, I'm judging the sin, not the sinner.

I myself do all sorts of things that are non-feminist, in the course of making it through the world.

The only person on this board who I've seen being really quite harsh (and that's just how she is, we're used to her now, I agree with her on an awful lot of stuff anyway) isn't a feminist - she declares so whenever asked.

I also find it hard to consider it a clique, since anyone can roll up and start talking...

PeresA-I don't understand your post. I am happy to engage-but I can't if I don't understand.

BertrandRussell

"MotherPeresA I share your opinion."

Which of the poster's opinions do you share?

Oh dear did I miss out an 's' - you make a clever and valid point that moves the discussion forward by pointing this out. Well done. I am shamed. Or are you going to claim you were genuinely confused?

"Oh dear did I miss out an 's' - you make a clever and valid point that moves the discussion forward by pointing this out. Well done. I am shamed. Or are you going to claim you were genuinely confused?"

Sorry? What 's'? I didn't notice a missing 's' I just wanted to know what you were agreeing with......

ChocChocPorridge

"I also find it hard to consider it a clique, since anyone can roll up and start talking..."

Yes they can but they may be dismissed as a 'random poster'. Or they may not be familiar with the correct etiquette. Etiquette is often used as a way to quell and control outsiders.

BertrandRussell

Really? You really couldn't infer? You need that level of specific clarification?
Perhaps this all might be a bit too confusing for you if you need a statement that associates a poster with a pp view point to be clarified in that level of detail.

I apologise if I confused you. I wish to be make it clear I was agreeing with the point in relation to the 'revolutionary' quote.

You know, feminists are so aggressive... they just put you down and sneer at you if you don't understand something and ask for clarification.................Oh, wait.......

Bertrand I didn't know which bit either. Just goes to show that once a person is hellbent on seeing their enemy everywhere they look they can read what they like into your tone.

Could you explain where 'carries more weight' comes from? You'll see that it's not present in what I wrote. I think this is a very relevant question given the context: you are asking me to justify something I patently didn't say.

You are correct insofar as you didn't use the form of words "carries more weight" in your original post.

This is what you said: I've lost count of the number of people that have naively brought their real-life opinion to a forum such as this one, only to be aggressively accused of being a goady fucker and baited into breaking some BS rule or other (see the TAAT comment and the poster that reported you).

Taken within the context of your previous text:

It's a sad irony that those working hardest to promote liberty often become extremely controlling; there is ample evidence of this on a great many of these threads.

It is not by chance that it is newcomers that are most aware of this. Whilst many will say that time spent at the frontline (sic) will "open your eyes", I suspect that it is actually the opposite

I took your words to mean that you believe that the women who post here believe we have had our eyes opened by "time spent at the frontline" but that we are wrong ("I suspect that it is actually the opposite"). and are therefore blind to the issues.

Your next paragraph stated that you have not only seen, but lost count of the number of people bringing a real-life opinion to posters you suspect might be blind to issues ("I suspect that it is actually the opposite") and being "aggressively accused of being a goady fucker and baited into breaking some BS rule or other." No one has accused you of either of those things, despite your obvious antipathy to the posters here.

It might be that it was not your intention, but when you pit what you see as "real-life opinions" against the opinions of those you appear to believe to be blind to those issues, I, not unreasonably concluded that you feel yours and others "real-life opinions" carry more weight than the opinions of those you believe to be blind.

There is the possibility that I have taken your words out of context, which is why I asked you to expand on it before I commented further. I'm sorry you saw it as an attack, I do hope that you now understand that it was a simple enquiry based on a reasonable interpretation of your words.

GuardianLions

You don't see it? Really?

You seem pretty antagonistic you say, in a post that is plainly meant to antagonise. Hellbent on seeing the enemy... works in the same vein, as does BertrandRussell's last post about aggression and sneering.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't very good reasons why this wouldn't be a clique, why core members might not be partisan and aggressive - I completely understand why they might be - it's the lack of self-awareness that troubles me.

Pirate's point is valid: if one is to have a movement dedicated to rights, it seems rather contrary to create spaces that possess all the same negative characteristics one is supposedly looking to change.

Society is a clique, the patriarchy is real. If you can understand that and consider it a bad thing, then why is it allowable here? It is a microcosm of all that same stuff. If privilege exists everywhere, why not here? Because people here are above basic human frailties? Do me a favour.

If you think this is an aggressive clique, do go and post as a woman on Reddit WTF.

Fair enough xenophile I see your reasoning.

I meant different, yet equal. I thought it was generally accepted that academia can struggle from existing in silos, just as people's lived-experience usually possesses little of the in-depth analysis of the former. The two can jar though, clearly, and any theoretical explanation of how stuff works needs to resonate. Where it doesn't, we should question why. Especially when the field in question is not a science, but a rights movement (meaning that the personal bias of the people involved apply to a greater or lesser extent depending on the topic). In brief, I was saying that people can be very dogmatic and dismissive.

DJBaggySmalls

Whataboutery.

Its gone from debate to mean within a few posts

There is another poster that does this as well, i dont like to engage with them

I'm not suggesting that there aren't very good reasons why this wouldn't be a clique, why core members might not be partisan and aggressive - I completely understand why they might be - it's the lack of self-awareness that troubles me.

Then colour me un-self-aware - I've posted here under 4 or 5 usernames over the past few years (all unconnected - I have no PMs or special friends on mumsnet), I've had disagreements, I've had compliments, and I've never felt unwelcome.

I don't find FWR an unwelcoming or harsh place, or even particularly robust - especially not in comparison to responses I've had on other topics where people have leapt to all sorts of judgements rather than clarify what I meant when I've said things.

a post that is plainly meant to antagonise

I have no interest in antagonising. I find it ironic that you are accusing other posters (as though we are borg) of lacking self-awareness.

if one is to have a movement dedicated to rights, it seems rather contrary to create spaces that possess all the same negative characteristics one is supposedly looking to change.

This is not really a 'space' is it in FWR, it in an open Internet forum where people of all opinons gather. And sadly some come with the specific intent of baiting and trolling feminists and feminism, or just to criticise feminists and feminism, or to disagree with feminists and feminism. Although you could say MN and their netiquette policies have 'created a (figurative) space', you can't say the same about the people in it.

Society is a clique

I don't really know what you mean by this - I think of a society as something that includes everyone in it, and there can be cliques within it.

the patriarchy is real

Yes

If you can understand that and consider it a bad thing, then why is it allowable here?

I don't think of FWR as patriarchal.

It is a microcosm of all that same stuff.

I honestly don't know what you mean.

Thank you Mother.

I found this interesting.

I thought it was generally accepted that academia can struggle from existing in silos, just as people's lived-experience usually possesses little of the in-depth analysis of the former.

This seems to suggest that you believe that people who post here are in academia, which is not true and never has been, there have been some posters who were academics, but none of them in a field that could be described as gender studies. It further seems to suggest that people with lived experience cannot be academics, and vice versa. Is this what you meant to say?

I don't think I can add more without riling people further, so I won't. These are just my observations, for what they're worth.

I wish everyone a good day.

This is something I find bizarre.

On FWR, people tend to be very precise, methodical, ask if they've understood - but that seems to be taken as an aggression, rather than as a genuine desire to understand. As if they think we're all just a load of passive aggressive women, maliciously mis-understanding them?

Compare and contrast AIBU where it escalates very quickly into virtual accusations rather than the slower approach.

I still dont see a huge amount of man bashing, only 2 examples have been given,, but theres plenty of women bashing that you are oblivious to.

I can add more without riling people further, so I won't.

Fwiw I am not riled. And I would appreciate it if you added more clarifications to the observations you have made so far (as opposed to more observations without much clarification iyswim).

Then colour me un-self-aware - I've posted here under 4 or 5 usernames over the past few years (all unconnected - I have no PMs or special friends on mumsnet), I've had disagreements, I've had compliments, and I've never felt unwelcome

Same here. I think I've sent one PM, though.

Anyhoo, as the OP was about general feminist man bashing on this board and not about whether the board is welcoming to those not in the "clique" (still awaiting my invitation, by the way, you mean harridans ) I'm still keen to see all the examples of feminists man bashing that we've been promised. Even one would be good.

Still waiting.

BertrandRussell

"You know, feminists are so aggressive... they just put you down and sneer at you if you don't understand something and ask for clarification.................Oh, wait......'

I take from this that you are implying I am not a feminist. I am. I would never say feminists are aggressive and I have not done so. You are attributing meanings to what I have said. I would not insult you by implying my feminist beliefs are more real than yours, yet you do it to me.
This is the issue.
MotherPeresA makes a point about silos. Just because I think the 'tone' of FWR is not particularly helpful to feminism does not mean I am not a feminist. Why would you think that? Why would you suggest that with no evidence?
The orthodoxy, it seems to me, is radical feminism, I would class myself as a liberal feminist. I don't come here to educate myself, did that years ago. I do feel it is important that more women feel welcomed into the feminist fold. I understand the need for a radical vanguard but I think some of the all or nothing attitudes can work to alienate women - and men - who do come on here to educate themselves.

I am disappearing now as I have some RL stuff to deal with not because I am being rude

Hmmm, I disagree that the orthodoxy here is radfem. I myself don't regard my position as rad fem, other than on trans issues, where the liberal side of feminism has frankly lost the feminist centre, and it doesn't seem possible to describe yourself as libfem and gender critical.

Rad fem is, I think, by definition a socialist movement (from my understanding anyway), so as I'm not a socialist, I'm out just on those grounds alone.

Perhaps you've made the very common misunderstanding that "radical" means "extreme", whereas in the context of radical feminism, the meaning is "from the root up", ie, the whole of the way that society functions needs rebuilt from the root up, because it's built on the patriarchy and can't be fixed.

As for liberal feminism, my understanding of that is typified by a sort of Everyday Feminism perspective: pro porn, pro legalisation of prostitution, every choice made by a women is a feminist one, and a race to the bottom of oppression. We could argue all day about whether that is feminism or not, but whatever it is, it's not for me, and it gets a short shrift on this board.

I have very strong feminist views, but I'm not radical. In fact, I'm one of those frequently scorned white middle class feminists. If I can now be described as radical in the way that people seem to want to use it, ie extreme, then frankly it was feminism that moved and not me.