Feminism as "let's be nice to everyone"

[OneFlewOverTheDodosNest]

I've started getting the rage with celebrities and women I know who like to virtue signal about the importance of feminism, but then make the definition of feminism so broad that's it's useless.

Some things I've seen lately that have made my teeth clench include "feminism works for all genders", "feminism is another word for equalism", "we can only make feminism work if we get men on side, so let's be nice to them" "here's a list of things feminism works on for men" etc etc.

One thing that REALLY pissed me off was Emma-Feminist-Watson (I know...) saying that boys not being able to cry was the "saddest thing" she could think of and it just really brought home to me how feminism has turned from this fight to liberate woman, to this platitude designed to show that you're nice but "don't worry, not in a threatening way". Seriously, you can't think of a single thing SADDER than a bloke being emotionally stunted?

How did it happen that mainstream feminism started focusing on the emotional needs of men, rather than the increasing rates of DV and sexual violence? How did the conversation shift from "we need to fund these shelters for women" to "we need to make sure men have refuges [that never get used]"?

Terf not reef

Haven't you heard ladies, third wave feminism is a sexist conspiracy by women to get preferential treatment, so of course the only way to make feminism good again is to focus on the guys, duh!

"If men were so worried about the harm patriarchy does to them, they could start their own movement to end it."

Indeed, MRAs love to cry about how much better of a life women have, but actually doing something, hmmmmm...

" I just happen to be a woman with an opinion." - but that's the problem. They have never come across a girl like that in their childhood, so they are now threatened when they do meet one like that.

Intersectionality too often turns into a form of oppression Olympics, which is not helpful for many people in many situations

I agree with MrsTP on everything on this thread, but particularly on "literal violence". So bloody annoying!

Incidentally, I stand by my "wanting to get laid" comment - that was me as a young, foolish, socialised to be man pleasing woman. And at least one other poster on this thread has said it was her too.

Because here's one of the issues with women's liberation, one which has been written about at length by feminists far more articulate than me: women are the one oppressed class who live in intimate relationships with, and often loving relationships with the oppressor class. It makes fighting for women's liberation a subtly different thing from fighting for liberation from racism, or from capitalist oppression. Although some women have written about setting up separatist communities (and more power to their elbow, and great for moving the Overton window) I think most women, even some women towards the radical feminist end of the spectrum, don't actually want this.

So it then becomes, on a personal level, a very interesting issue in how you live your life in accordance with your principles while maintaining friendly relationships with the men around you - who are for the most part oblivious to the amount of sexist crap you put up with on a day to day basis. Some you want to maintain friendly relations with because you believe that despite their blind spots they are for the most part fundamentally nice people (but oh god, those fucking blind spots are so annoying) and others you want to maintain friendly relations with because you don't want to knacker your chances of a job/promotion etc., and some you want to maintain the illusion of friendly relationships with, because you're pretty sure they're such extreme misogynists that if they found out what you really thought, they'd use that as an excuse to punch you. In the very literal, real world sense of violence.

So yup, toning down one's feminism so as to get laid/not antagonise men because (a) we have to live with them, (b) some of us want to live with them, (c) it can be the sensible tactic for surviving in the world, (d) we don't want to get punched - that really is a thing.

But again Prickly, it doesn't matter how much one tones down one's feminism, there's always going to be some bloke who accuses you of being mean to men, or generalising men's attitudes or whatever, and there will also be a group of women who will demand you tone it down even further to be "nice".

Nice simply doesn't work when it comes to social change. Not without at least a background threat of a bloody big stick anyway. Apologies if that's tiresomely Bolshevik, but it is the truth.

Well, precisely, Xenophile, and the realisation of that (among many other life experiences) is why I'm not the naive nicey-nicey lib fem I used to be!

But the temptation is still there for women who've had perhaps rather sheltered experiences of life and a heck of a lot of good luck to embrace nicey-nice feminism-lite, because it's a strategy which seems at first sight to benefit them. Until they come crashing head first into real life experience (which for many of us is having a baby, for all too many will be experience of sexual assault, or of work place discrimination).

That I guess is why many of us become more radical as we get older. (A RL friend of mine uses a great phrase: "radicalised by motherhood.")

toning down one's feminism so as to get laid/not antagonise men because (a) we have to live with them, (b) some of us want to live with them, (c) it can be the sensible tactic for surviving in the world, (d) we don't want to get punched - that really is a thing

How about toning down your feminism to make life easier for you? I am very politically aware and for much of my twenties I stuck to my principles at work and at home. I didn't remove my body hair, short hair, no make up. I was assertive with men and around men. I would argue the point and not let up. And it was hard fucking work.

I have considered these issues in relation to me long and hard. I was brought up in this fucked up society and I have taken on board the conditioning, I know this. But bottom line I am happier now I have toned down. Hair, make up, clothes, sex, I fit in and life is easier.

I also think the more restrained 'me' changes more minds and influences more people. The fact that I am less keen to mount the barricades (although I still like a barricade now and then) makes me more credible.

My issue in relation to 'getting laid' is if you are doing it or the wrong reasons don't. PricklyBall you are reflecting your experiences and that is relevant and adds greatly to the discussion, however, other people have different experiences and for many 'getting laid' is a positive life enhancing experience. No one should be criticised by anybody for making informed choices about their own body.

Agreed PricklyBall and we can now sadly see the results of nicey-nice, choosy-choice feminism all around us.

Oh I totally agree - getting laid (in the right circumstances) is indeed one of life's great experiences, and I suspect that one of my regrets on reaching the grave will be that the opportunity didn't present itself more often. But it doesn't detract from the political point that being a heterosexual feminist puts you in an interesting position with regard to your interactions with men.

As for nice getting you further... maybe in some circs. In my experience, courts of law backed by your trade union gets you even further. And sometimes getting angry is the right response. The idea that all our problems could be solved by being nicer really isn't a believable one, though.

My dd has always been a feminist- but even more so when she got to university and discovered how many young men were assuming a mantle of feminism as a pulling technique......

Every political movement needs a spectrum that does not mean one end is right and the other wrong. It also doesn't mean you can't move.

Classic Bolshevism promotes the idea of a vanguard. The fighters (literal or metaphorical) who push back the barriers these are essential to keep up momentum. Every movement also needs the followers who align with it. And importantly it needs support within the general populace.

All these groups play a vital role non are superior, all need to be valued. If the vanguard pushes away the wider populace support for lacking ideological purity it will find itself alone and irrelevant.

PricklyBall perhaps we need to define nice. I would class legal action by a TU as being nice. My version of not being nice is more 'active'.

The idea that all our problems could be solved by being nicer really isn't a believable one, though.

It is also very, very insulting to women all over the world.

I for one don't believe that women in, say, Afghanistan simply failed to meekly ask the religious extremist male dictators for more rights.

Also, European women of the Middle Ages, I am sure, too, nicely asked to not be treated like chattel.

Guess what? Asking nicely doesn't help at fucking all.

Once you have a large movement and the oppressor class can easily see that if you were to become violent, they'd be dead, that's when "asking nicely" might help.

But never without the underlying threat of violence. And the oppressor class needs to be aware you are both willing and able to get violent, which with women sadly isn't always the case.

It isn't either/or. All movements need a variety of techniques to attract followers.

Have a read at this shit and tell me I should be 'nice'

nutlgbtexec.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/statement-on-gender-recognition-act.html?m=1

AssignedMentalAtBirth

Dear God. I could even finish it. It's straight out of the MRI handbook for dummies.

In Ireland similar legislation to the GRA has not resulted in more oppressive treatment of women.

How the fuck do they know???

We believe that fears about cis-gender men abusing the system in order to access women only spaces, suggests that they think that cis-women can’t also be predators or abusers.

Words fail me.

I know Datun I'm seething. This is the NUT! We are fucked

I'm off to tweet my objections to these people who signed it.

AssignedMentalAtBirth

Any chance you could be be specific with your objections? Citing stats, etc.

Honestly, just when I think people are beginning to understand, I read something like that. Utter garbage.

Once you have a large movement and the oppressor class can easily see that if you were to become violent, they'd be dead, that's when "asking nicely" might help.

Which explains why oppressed Men were protected whilst girls weren't in Rochdale.

Mousse "I have considered these issues in relation to me long and hard. I was brought up in this fucked up society and I have taken on board the conditioning, I know this. But bottom line I am happier now I have toned down. Hair, make up, clothes, sex, I fit in and life is easier."

Maybe some women value the cause more than their own ease of life?

And one day future women will be the better for it.

But bottom line I am happier now I have toned down. Hair, make up, clothes, sex, I fit in and life is easier."
Some of us get worn down.,..........
As regards lesbians fitting-in when I was younger, there were many dykes I used to know who weren't out, because family\friends, not making a fuss, they had life 'easier' than the out dykes. But it kills you inside. You are hiding something important about yourself to have things a bit 'easier', but it isn't a zero cost option . As long as we don't forget that because otherwise you can come close to blaming someone for attracting flak because they are out as a dyke, and/or as a feminist.

that NUT statement is depressing...

It's badly written as well as depressing. It's opinion based not evidence based. It talks about gender rather than sex.

If you're recording the sex of the person that committed a crime, I don't give a fig if they identify as a woman or a man, I want to know their sex. Crime (and other) stats should be analyzed by sex not by gender identity.

I wonder how many of those signatories are wholeheartedly in agreement, and how many felt they couldn't object. We'll never know of course.

Does the NUT often campaign publicly on non-teaching topics?

Prickly, you may have toned down your feminism for men or to get laid, I didn't. My feminism isn't and has never been about men. It does require me to understand women better, listen harder and be kinder to them. I see nothing good coming out of division, dismissal or minimising the contribution of other women to the feminist cause. Well, nothing good for women anyway.

Can you tell me how such attitudes to other feminists forwards the cause?