Feminists - how do you feel about being friends with misogynists / anti-feminists?

[magicmallow]

A close friends absolutely hates feminism and rants on about it being cultural marxism, denying inequality exists between the sexes, a lot of other what I consider scary views, and generally denying or disagreeing with my experience as a woman (despite being a man).

As he's an old friend that has only fairly recently expressed these opinions I'm struggling a bit. I don't want to live in an echo chamber but also I do find some of his opinions actually scarily misogynist so am wondering if I can put this to one side and maintain a friendship when he clearly has so much of a problem with women (even if he does not recognise this).

I'm really struggling with it!

[FrogspawnSmoothie]

I agree with many of your points. I don't see an issue with either partner being the main earner and focusing on their career, so long as the other doesn't feel forced to sacrifice theirs (which sadly often seems to be the case, albeit the situation often being that the man is able to earn significantly more so it arguably makes sense - this is where society needs to change and become more accepting of men being taking paternity leave etc).

[FrogspawnSmoothie]

I think going forwards women's contributions will increasingly be recognised. It's only in recent human history that physical strength is largely irrelevant - unlike in heavy industry of days gone by, and a few hundred years ago when military conflict was settled via hand to hand combat.

[AntiSocialInjusticePacifist]

I'm not saying this is true, merely that it tracks with relationships that I have observed, so it's only anecdotal. Further study would need to be done to state definitively. I am often surprised by how much is assumed in relationships in terms of shared values, and especially when it comes to when children enter the picture.

In fact I see several relationship threads where women are often surprised with how little men actively engage in childcare duties once children come along, and then the level of frustration that comes along with it. I think often women enter into relationships without getting it ironed out well ahead of time what the expectations they actually have, conversely I think many men who had a mother at home who sacrificed career, hobbies and personal goals for the good of the family, and blindly assume any future partner will fall into that mould as well, or at least some variation of it.

However I think there is an often undiscussed issue at the heart of this. Men often have a disproportionately powerful negotiating position early on in a relationship, particularly in modern times. Insofar as women have a biological pressure to have children earlier than men, so if a woman has successfully paired off with a man who ticks enough of her boxes, and the child issue is raised with 100% transparency I think there is a fear that stressing at that stage what they would expect of a man once children come along would be enough to make the man reconsider the whole relationship.

Unfortunately many women I think proceed in the blind hope their partner will step up in precisely the ways they require, which isn't entirely unreasonable if the relationship has been broadly speaking 50/50 so far. Men for their part commit the same error, in that if they envisaged a relationship where the woman's career will take a backseat for the sake of the children.

Given of course we're all having probably more and varied relationships than our grandparents had, and nudging the point of settling down and children to later in life (which does have definite advantages in terms of quality of life and added experience), this is putting additional pressure on women, coupled with the biological aspects. This hands a hell of a lot MORE power to men in individual relationships at that stage of a relationship. As if a couple are eyeing up kids in their late 20s and early 30s the cost for a man to walk away at this stage is considerably less than for a woman, for whom having to start back at square one with a new partner could be much more costly, as she has less time to play with.

Whilst of course more and more men are stepping up and being more involved fathers, I don't think they are in any way enough of them for it to be widely assumed that any individual man will. I think what may be required is a re-evaluation of the marriage vows in a modern context, like toss out the obey bit, and maybe have a section entirely devoted to how the needs of future children will be shared. Marriage is one of the few important rituals left that we partake in, and if you started seeing doe eyes couples in rom-coms, movies and dramas saying something like:

"I swear to share equally in providing for the nourishment, love and care of all of our future children, never to leave to one what is the duty of all in a loving marriage."

It may not seem like much, but these rituals do have very significant cultural power. Anyway I'll think on it more but it's nearly 5:00am as I post this, so my brain power is somewhat muted!

[Gubbeen]

My ‘relationship’ with this person wouldn’t last long enough for a cup of coffee, far less long enough to turn into a friendship.

[SophocIestheFox]

For me, it would depend on how it was expressed. If we’re talking someone anti-feminist like, say, Douglas Murray who is intelligent and inquiring and we could have an excellent hammer and tongs debate over it, then I’d be happy to have that in my life.

But if we’re talking just some tragic bitter woman hater incel type who believes crap he reads in the manosphere and just regurgitates it to justify his own terrible life choices, not so much.

I liked nearlygranny’s approach to tackle it.

[BlingLoving]

@AntiSocialInjusticePacifist

You'll note that my entire point was that my example was just to get men thinking about the issue, not to necessarily solve the problem, agree an answer and all go off blithely into the sunset....

Also, whether the issue of fewer women at CEO level is blatant discrimination or the type of discrimination that means women are just excluded throughout - even if it is, apparently, by "choice" whereby these women choose to have families etc, I still see this as a problem. Socialisation of girls and boys re expectations is a problem and if it's affecting women well into their working lives, even more so. Our working world is designed for a default (traditional) traditional male. Which means these so called "choices" where women "choose" not to engage, completely misses the point that if our social, professional, legal etc set ups were different, women might have different outcomes. We assume, that the ONLY way to be a CEO is to work 24/7 for 15 years because that has been what works for men. But arguably, a culture that embraces a different way of working, that encourages all employees, male and female, to have lives outside of work, is perfectly feasible and could be successful. As you point out, firms that have greater female representation at senior level have been proven to be more successful.

[JurgenKloppsCat]

I bet you a quid he has been listening to Jordan Peterson. It sounds like he is parroting him without understanding half of what is being said.

[StillNotAGirl]

@TehBewilderness

It is very risky to continue a friendship with a man who expresses hatred toward women.

This ^

I could be friends with an old fashioned mild misogynist who likes women whilst I gently pointed out the inconsistencies. I couldn't be friends with anyone who hates feminists or any other subset of women.

[NearlyGranny]

Effectively, you need to ask him who put those nasty ideas into his pretty little head, don't you, OP?! 😉

[AntiSocialInjusticePacifist]

@BlingLoving oh I assure you I think about the issue a great deal and at depth, although I cannot say I am anywhere the solution let alone blithely going off anywhere!

I am heartened to learn we are in alignment on the cause likely being multi-variate, and I completely agree with you still seeing I problem, I see it too. Although we likely part company when you talk about an entire restructuring of the world of professional life, as I think you'll find as we discuss it that it isn't structed just to revolve around men's lives, in fact lower down the economic scale we have to keep a hell of a weather eye on industrial accidents which do disproportionately affect men (particularly in the west), so I think you have one hell of a case to make before you can claim the world of work caters to men specifically.

I think the problem is the other way around, companies exist to be profitable and THAT is the bottom line, men because of reduced childcare expectations and choices that they make i.e. the choice to revolve their lives entirely around work and that is the significant factor for their success.

I am not against you, I am merely sceptical. If you have a business model that revolutionises how we all work, and that can outcompete those companies that don't I'm all for it. I would just be opposed to a top down imposition onto our industries, financial sector etc for fear that we would end up massively outcompeted by countries that didn't adopt the same measures, and tanking our overall wealth as a result.

Like it or not the current way we operate our economies produces the greatest amount of wealth and opportunities, and whilst I am not blind to the fact there appear to be baked in equalities both in terms of sex, race and social class which I would be very keen to eradicate as much as we can, I don't want to see our relative wealth as a nation put at risk. I predict we are likely in agreement when I say it does appear that when our economy is on the decline, women at the bottom end are very often the ones to feel the effects first, and worst.

I hope at the absolute very least, as much as we may disagree on certain points, you feel I am taking you seriously, and listening. If you feel I haven't, I apologise and will take any criticism on that score on the chin, and try the refine my approach.

[RadandMad]

I think some blokes just latch into the connection between feminism and the kind of critical theory ideology that's landed us up where we are now. As I understand it, marxist feminists in the 60s/70s were the first to come up with it, and that's been widely discussed by the likes of Jordan Peterson and James Lindsay, along with critiques of intersectional feminism.

If I valued my friendship, I'd remind him that second wave feminism is a very different beast, and that older feminists actually fought for equal rights for men, especially in areas like paternity leave. And yes, remind him too of all the obvious injustices that sane feminism has addressed, and continued to address.

[BlingLoving]

@AntiSocialInjusticePacifist. Happy to discuss more.

Although we likely part company when you talk about an entire restructuring of the world of professional life, as I think you'll find as we discuss it that it isn't structed just to revolve around men's lives, in fact lower down the economic scale we have to keep a hell of a weather eye on industrial accidents which do disproportionately affect men (particularly in the west), so I think you have one hell of a case to make before you can claim the world of work caters to men specifically.

I think this is interesting because as is often the case, the assumption that is if something is designed for traditional male, it must always benefit that male. Which I would disagree with.

Work is designed for default male - ie few home/childcare responsibilities, flexibility etc etc, yes. This is particularly true in the corporate world. In the case of more manual/"blue collar" type work, there's obviously tradition of men doing this work (and of course, Invisible Woman makes all those interesting points about how these factories/work environments have been designed for the male body). In both cases, I'd argue that men are also negatively impacted by this default male. In the corporate world, of course, it means they have the power and the money so that's a plus. But we also know that this approach has impacts on men's mental health, family life, health etc. And absolutely, many men are at risk from work related injuries due to the physical nature of their job (and possibly, insufficient safety/training etc - which is likely a class issue and a lack of concern for the "working" class vs the elite. But that's a separate conversation. )

But let's talk about the corporate world. There's been lots of discussion regarding the gender pay gap. Lots of agreement it's because women take maternity leave, have more caring responsibilities etc etc. To your point - corporates are there to make money and the hours put in lead to more money so men benefit. Personally, yes, I do think an adjustment in this thinking, or at least a more balanced approach would be useful. Not least to improve the quality of life and mental health of all members of our society. But let's put that aside for now and discuss OTHER reasons for the gender pay gap.

Law firms, accounting firms etc for example, have spent a lot of time discussing the issue of billable hours. Billable hours are a key metric in promotion, compensation etc. And women's billable hours tend to be lower. Default is to assume that this is because women have to leave the office on time/start late/ work part time etc. This is at least part of it. However, when firms look at the numbers, another thing they often find is that even when the women are IN the office, their proportion of billable hours is lower than the male equivalents. Why is that? Suggestions include that women are given more non-billable tasks, women are not automatically selected for new billable work, women are not billing as accurately/generously as men. So these are all things that could and should be addressed.

Similarly, performance reviews. Many city firms are trying to work out how to deal with the fact that when you separate performance reviews by male/female, the average for men is better than the average for women, often by a significant amount. This seems odd when you'd consider that overall, on average, you'd expect competency variables to be the same. This level of unconscious (or conscious) bias and opinion-forming based on male behaviours etc is a huge problem that HR departments are actively trying to figure out how to eradicate. (and yes, this is where we get into the "Strident" vs "assertive" of performance review language).

We also know gender plays a huge role in job recruitment. And frankly, this is true across recruitment, politics etc. Women's only shortlists make me instinctively cringe. However, when you consider how often a man is elected over a woman, it's hard to believe that there isn't discrimination going on. I'd have to go find statistics but I remember seeing some pretty clear ones whereby in elections with a male and female candidate, the male candidate is significantly more likely to win. Again, I'm not buying the theory that all these men just happen to be better. Not least when looked at empirically, we can see that many are useless and incompetent.

So yes, I'm still absolutely clear that there are much bigger societal issues at play here and that it's far more complex than just how women are treated in the workplace. And it may turn me (and DH) into slightly rabid feminists who are constantly lecturing both DD and DS if they so much as suggest that only girls can wear pink or whatever, or made DH want to punch a man in the face when he heard him telling his toddler son to stop "crying like a girl" but it doesn't change the fact that there are things inherent in the workplace that work against women and benefit men.

[BlingLoving]

Oh, and on that billable hours thing, junior women are also less likely to be allocated to client work that is as high profile/high status/potential for high billable hours.

[highame]

Teams vs. groups

I've been mulling over this thread and there's something I can't put my finger on, so this might not be as clear as I would like but....
Boys quickly learn about teams, they understand the structure in a different way to girls and they have played at teams for longer. It pans out to supporting teams and cementing male attitudes. It then carries through into work. You can see it on building sites and in office blocks. Women are allowed in but I'm not sure we understand the rules.

Women form groups and although we maintain lifelong friendships, the bonding and structure of these groups is less firm. When we move into work, we take the group ideas with us but they are less use in a work environment, because men's team structure dominates the workplace.

I'm hoping some of you can see where I'm trying to get to, because I can see that over the last 50 years, things just haven't changed enough for women in work and in childcare.

I wonder if women playing more team games and at higher, much more competitive levels will filter into women's ideas about the work environment?

[AntiSocialInjusticePacifist]

@BlingLoving sorry for replying so late, I've been a bit busy for the last few days, but I'd like to thank you for the discussion I have certainly learned a thing or two, and I think it's safe to say we probably agree more where we differ.

Just to reiterate I'd be in agreement in terms of culturally tinkering with our collective approach to work/life balance, I'm in agreement that being too work focused is not especially health, and I think recent data that tracks women's mental health and general longevity shows a decline as women have entered the workforce in larger numbers. Although it's important to emphasis correlation does not mean causation, but it's worth bearing in mind.

Thanks for sharing the information on the legal profession it's not really an area I have experience of besides as a consumer, and my solicitor is a woman and she has been quite frankly amazing.

I'm not sure how I feel about all women shortlists either, I think I would prefer instead of having them we just elect pairs of people for each seat, one has to be a man and one a woman and they can split duties between them. That would hit 50/50 representation in one swoop, and I believe it's important that our government is as representative of the people they are governing as is possible. However on the subject of women and politics, technically whenever a woman has led a political party in the UK they have a 100% success rate in general elections.

Tell me about kids and school! I've had to correct some patently absurd things my son has picked up at primary school about girls, I'm not too fussed about the pink thing it used to be a colour the clothed little boys in in ancient greece. It's cultural link to girls is entirely socialised.

[Betheanne]

To tell you the truth, I would still be happily skipping along if I hadn't confronted my ex-husband with "What websites are you reading?" He turned the question on me and we both agreed to start reading the other side. After years of speaking different languages we are finally able to communicate. He saw me as a "woke" cult member and I saw him as a "heartless right wing asshole". We were both sort of right and we laugh about it now.

[dadshere]

If he doesn't like women, then he is not really your friend is he? I had a similar chat with DH about one of his 'friends' who frequently made racist comments. He was an equal opportunites racist, happy to go at POC one minute and the Irish, Chinese, Asians, Welsh ad infinitum. Although it is not in any way visible, DH has mixed heritage, his father was an immigrant as were his grandparents on the other side and he has a very interesting mix of grandparents from both Asia and Africa. So called friend knew of his ancestory ( he had met some of dh's relations who are clearly of asian descent) and dh has frequently spoken about 'going-back' to visit family but this friend still felt comfortable enough to be racist in front of him. It isn't banter, it is hate. DH eventually saw the light and has distanced himself. I advise you to do the same.

[DidoLamenting]

Law firms, accounting firms etc for example, have spent a lot of time discussing the issue of billable hours. Billable hours are a key metric in promotion, compensation etc. And women's billable hours tend to be lower. Default is to assume that this is because women have to leave the office on time/start late/ work part time etc. This is at least part of it. However, when firms look at the numbers, another thing they often find is that even when the women are IN the office, their proportion of billable hours is lower than the male equivalents. Why is that? Suggestions include that women are given more non-billable tasks, women are not automatically selected for new billable work, women are not billing as accurately/generously as men. So these are all things that could and should be addressed

Evidence for this sweeping and, in my view and experience, inaccurate generalisation?

[Dervel]

@DidoLamenting I dunno it reads to me like this might be her area of expertise. I may be wrong though!

[Regularsizedrudy]

No way would I be friends with someone like this. I don’t really care if people want to accuse me of living in an echo chamber, life’s too short. It would be mentally damaging to have to listen to this shit. There’s having a different opinion and then there’s being straight up hateful and I’m not prepared to be a dumping ground for some blokes issues.

[GreenieFingers]

Some of the knock-backs in these responses are brilliant!
documenting some of the best for future reference

[DidoLamenting]

[quote Dervel]@DidoLamenting I dunno it reads to me like this might be her area of expertise. I may be wrong though![/quote]
Well what would I know? I've only worked in private sector law firms since 1984.

[DidoLamenting]

@BlingLoving

Oh, and on that billable hours thing, junior women are also less likely to be allocated to client work that is as high profile/high status/potential for high billable hours.

Evidence please.

In my many years of experience junior anyones are not going to be allocated to high profile/ high status clients as the sole or main point of contact.

Junior anyones will be included as part of a team.