This comment is from commenter Transhuman on the post There Is No Gender War.
I don’t know if I’m sleep-deprived or I have had a genuine epiphany.
Perhaps if men realised that Feminism is simply not relevant to them and moved on to solving their problems. Feminism doesn’t offer me anything, and I understand that it should not, and neither should I expect it to. It does a fine job of looking after the women in my life so I need to get together with some men and we need to sort out what we think men need. Then make it happen.
An example:
I do not go to my local bakery and harangue the baker when his store has no spare parts for my car. He’s a baker, not an auto mechanic.
–
photo by uberzombie / flickr
About the Editors
This post doesn’t offer anything by way of solution, other than perpetuating a discourse that “something, somewhere isn’t quite right” and that it’s all our fault. Nonsense.
But bakers don’t go around saying they can fix cars. That’s the key difference with feminism, there are plenty that will say they are egalitarian and care about male issues whilst others are simply…bakers.
At the risk of starting an argument, the name should have changed years and years ago when it was clear that helping women would and could also help men. It’s moot now, since the name is entrenched. Too bad.
@Julie, my point is Feminism doesn’t help men. In some cases it actively, whether intentionally or not, harms men. Thus, to my mind, Feminism offers men nothing. Time for us men to leave Feminism to the women and work on something for ourselves.
Yes, in the case above the baker has been advertising it is a place to go for auto-maintenance but we no that is not the case. Time to accept the reality, rather than entertain the dogma, and move on.
‘Know’ not ‘no’
Egalitarianism? The new super car shop, eat nice donuts and bread whilst your car gets repaired!
Fine by me.
Damn… that sounds good.
Its worse than what’s happened to the name. The name could change tomorrow but as long as the damaging ideas are there the effect will still be the same.
Feminism is exactly what the name says. No more, no less.
Besides, names are not important, content is.
Feminism is too often cries for equal treatment under the guise of wanting special treatment. I’m for fairness for all, so I do not call myself a feminist. In fact, a woman recently tried to get me fired from a paper that runs my syndicated advice column (which is science- rather than ideology-based) on the grounds that I am “anti-feminist.”
If feminists were truly for fair treatment for all, they would speak out when men’s rights are violated, as I do.
Quite right Amy.
In the many forays onto feminist boards I have made, the prevailing concept is that women’s issues are everybody’s business, but men’s issues certainly aren’t THEIR business.
I remember a while back somebody posted a link on tgmp from a jezebel thread discussing male domestic violence victims.
One poster said something (roughly analogous to) “eff men, let them build their own shelters like we did” which was two posts above a different poster who said: “feminism absolutely is about equality, feminists care about all victims”.
I thought it was interesting that the 2nd poster was willing to contradict the intruding male-friendly poster, but not enter into a debate with the 1st poster and tell her that was a horrible attitude.
They rally the wagons around anybody intruding into their space, but they don’t (to me) have any kind of actual debate to single out those who are swimming in extremism.
Well then the baker needs to quit advertising that they are THE PLACE to go for car parts and THE PLACE to go for automotive work. The baker has no reason to get mad when people some in looking for automotive assistance when the banker’s shop has ads, photos, and other things related to cars in the windows and on the shelves.
Let’s see. The baker claims that people that need automotive help should come to the baker’s shop. People come to the baker’s shop looking for car help and the baker replies, “We don’t do that stuff here!”. Is the baker at fault for advertising something that’s not done there or are the people looking for car help at fault for going to a place where car parts/assistance was advertised?
Maybe the baker and the auto guy ought to consider a business where the auto guy fixes cars and the baker has a cafe for folks to wait at and have a snack while their car is being fixed. That would be cool.
That would be ideal.
But to continue the example you have a baker’s shop and an automotive shop both already claiming that they offer both but when a customer goes to one expecting to find both they are turned away because “they shouldn’t be expected to do that”.
It would be great if they both did come together and open a joint shop but that’s going to be a hard go as long as both continue to act like they (and only) already offer both baked goods and car stuff.
Well in my example, the baker, when asked about changing oil, would say, I can’t help you directly but let me take you to my friend the auto guy and vice versa. Why wouldn’t they collaborate (I know I know), but that’s how Groovy Lube and Il Tarrazza work here in Austin!
Nice.
Or we could make a fully functional car out of doughnuts that runs on biofuel.
(I’m gluten-deprived, and no I’ve no idea who is the car and who is the doughnut).
I don’t know anymore either. But I”m hungry now.
Baker is feminism, car shop is men’s activism I think. Some of the feminists/bakers tell men that feminism = egalitarianism and they will help champion men’s rights but others only want to handle women’s rights and bake cakes and dealing with cooking oil, not motor oil.
Tell the baker to stop lobbying for laws against the automotive repair industry.
You nailed it, Patrick!
Or help the auto-motive repair industry lobby for itself, and against the lobbying of the baker that harms the auto-motive industry.
Which laws would those be?
They have been discussed here a lot, but in case you missed them:
- VAWA
- Debtors’ prison laws for fathers who fall behind in CS payments but not for mothers who intefere with visitation
-Legal tolerance for MGM but legal prohibtion of FGM
- Rape laws that recognize only female victims and immunize female rapists by not characterizing their actions as rape.
-DV laws that presume the man is the perpetrator when it is unclear which partner is the perpetrator (“Predominant Aggressor” laws)
- Laws that require a husband to get approval from his wife for a vasectomy where there is no equivalent law requiring a woman to get approval from her husband for a tubal ligation, birth copntrol pill prescription or abortion.
And of course there is unequal application of supposedly gender neutral laws:
- Female sentencing discount/ incarceration disparity
- Lack of shelter space for male DV victims/survivors
- Rampant gender discrimination in the family court system
- Lynch mob bigotry against men accused of rape – denial of Constitutional rights, refusal to punish false accusers
- Unequal gendered application of Title IX.
That’s a start for you. You can do more research if you are interested.
Can you find a cite for this? Using LexisNexis I was unable to locate any such laws for any state in the US, and for other countries I was only able to find laws that prohibit vasectomies outright (but they also prohibited tubal ligations as well). Perhaps my search wasn’t comprehensive enough?
Yes Nick, my understanding is that there may not be laws on the books, but some doctors choose to require that their patients sign forms and include a spousal form. That would create a barrier to access, but there isn’t, so far as I can tell an actual law.
I did note that it’s “some” doctors.
I feel this post is valid. I’m quite tired of reading incredibly negative comments continuously bashing feminism, even when the original post has nothing to do with feminism or any of its ideals! What I take from this post, is instead of finding common ground by disliking something (such as “feminism”), maybe find common ground on something positive that can go to better the issues that matter to you.
What’s needed is to recognize that feminism is simply Advocacy for Women, period. There’s nothing wrong with that; there are advocacy groups for all sorts of causes. Nobody complains that the NAACP isn’t doing enough for Jewish Americans, for example, or that the SPCA isn’t promoting healthcare reform. They’re separate issues.
Feminism has relinquished its claim to being about ‘equality for all.’ It’s a movement to look out for women’s interests, period… as indicated by its very name. That’s fine; just stop pretending it will show equal concern for men’s interests when reality has proven otherwise.
Has feminism ever really made that claim?
There is a fundamental language problem here, which I think Transhuman’s comment speaks to. I don’t think the claim has ever been that feminism’s goal was to show “equal concern” for men’s and women’s interests. I believe the goal of feminism has been and remains “equality” but the approach is decidedly one-sided. That is, in pursuing equality they are focused on eliminating what they see as the systemic disadvantages to women in our culture.
Sometimes feminists, like any other group of people, see larger differences than actually exist. It was only very recently that the CDC released its report on intimate partner violence. Why should we retroactively expect feminists to know, for example, that the rates of domestic violence are quite close between men and women, particularly when every narrative in the culture paints it as almost exclusively a man-on-woman thing? How are they to know how many silent male victims there are when those victims are, by definition. silent? That’s not to blame the victim for not speaking out – only to point out that it’s not necessarily willful ignorance, let alone malice, to show no concern for male victims you don’t know exist.
If I believed the cultural narrative that the vast majority of intimate partner violence was committed by men, why should I be faulted for supporting VAWA? Based on that narrative it sounds like a really good idea. I had a sense the numbers weren’t one-sided, but i didn’t know they were as close as they are. Now that we have the data, now that we know, our job is to tell our stories, listen to those of others, educate one other. We are all of us ignorant and blind and stumbling our way around this culture trying to figure out how to make things better. Do we really think attacking each other is the best way forward? Is it not better to light a candle than to curse the darkness?
Why should we retroactively expect feminists to know, for example, that the rates of domestic violence are quite close between men and women, particularly when every narrative in the culture paints it as almost exclusively a man-on-woman thing?
Because if they look in their own history they will see that there are folks who operated (or are still operating) under that same label who contributed to the very cultural narrative. And it doesn’t help that some of those folks while playing that narrative retroactively hold today’s men responsible for the actions of past men, all because we share gender.
How are they to know how many silent male victims there are when those victims are, by definition. silent?
Its not a matter of them knowing how many there are its a matter of simply acknowledging their xistence. To flip thigs around a bit they don’t expect men to know how many silent female victims
there are do they? No but they do expect us to at least acknowledge the existence of silent female victims.
Now that we have the data, now that we know, our job is to tell our stories, listen to those of others, educate one other. We are all of us ignorant and blind and stumbling our way around this culture trying to figure out how to make things better. Do we really think attacking each other is the best way forward? Is it not better to light a candle than to curse the darkness?
I’ll agree that ultimately its better to light a candle than to curse the dark but its not that simple for people who ahve been telling these stories for a long time and have been actively ignored. To folks like that they have been a lot of lighting candles for a long time. We can say that the attacks are wrong until we are blue in the face but its going to be a hard time getting through to people that have been lighting candles for so long that they are ready to burn the house down.
And for the record the parts of VAWA that are in there to help women, I’m all for them. My problem is that there are parts in there that actively work against male victims of violence. You would think that at the bear minumum the folks that push for this act (or should I say folks that bully others for support to the point of blocking any voice that is not full on supportive from speaking at hearings) would be able to at least figure out a way to help women that does not actively harm men.
If all mention of men and males was stripped out of VAWA and was centered totally around women I would just start pushing for a VAMA. Or maybe a No Violence Against Anyone Act (NVAAA). But as it stands there are parts of the VAWA that actively perpetuate the narrative that says, “domestic violence is something that men do to women”. And as we have seen challenging that narrative is akin to saying you support violence against women.
Nick,
My understanding is that radical feminists in the DV industry aren’t simply ignorant, but willfully spread deceitful lies and even use censorship to promote the idea that DV is not gender symmetrical.
Male victims of female intimate partner violence are *banned* from speaking at VAWA reathorization hearings.
The famous researchers Gelles and Strauss (who were once feminist darlings and famously estimated that one woman is beaten every 17 seconds in the USA) are also *banned* from VAWA reauthorization hearings.
The reason is that all of their research for the last 30 years showed that DV was gender symmetrical and they now preach a gender-neutral solution to solving DV.
What seems to be happening (not all through the DV movement, but definately at the top) is one of *willful* obstruction of help for male victims and censorship of factual evidence that men are at risk too.
You say that even though feminists attack the problem only from women’s perspective that their goal is still equality. After reviewing evidence of the actions of the heads of the political branch of feminism, I have serious doubts this is the case.
All the *mountains* of evidence notwithstanding if you’re trying to make X equal to Y, but have no interest in observing or quantifying what Y is, then you have no idea when X surpasses Y.
The radical leaders of the political branch of feminist’s lack of concern to measure men’s oppression, disposability, disenfranchisement, or tendencies of being at risk for serious societal issues (like rape, DV, homelessness, suicide, education) then means that this subset of very powerful movers and shakers of political feminists have no idea if they are in fact fighting for equality (or as seems to be the case) supremacy.
Nick, Mostly: “Has feminism ever really made that claim?”
Yes, Nick, it has. Certain parts of it love to tout how solving women’s problems would solve men’s problems. About how it’s all about equality.
Nick, Mostly: “Why should we retroactively expect feminists to know, for example, that the rates of domestic violence are quite close between men and women, particularly when every narrative in the culture paints it as almost exclusively a man-on-woman thing?”
Maybe if these feminists were about equality, they would be fighting against this narrative and actively looking for and supporting stats like the CDC report in the first place. Isn’t feminism about fighting against narratives that stereotype genders? Or does it only concern narratives that stereotype women only?
Nick, Mostly: “How are they to know how many silent male victims there are when those victims are, by definition. silent?”
And what of those victims who AREN’T silent? When they speak out and are labeled as “Priveledged White Males that benefit from systems that oppress women”, that they don’t have it as bad as women, or they’re anomolys compared to the majority of female victims?
Victims have been speaking out. But not many people want to listen.
Nick, Mostly: “If I believed the cultural narrative that the vast majority of intimate partner violence was committed by men, why should I be faulted for supporting VAWA? Based on that narrative it sounds like a really good idea.”
Then you are part of the problem if you don’t go out there and research the source of that narrative, where it comes from, etc.
I think that this issue may arise from certain expectations. Most of the feminists that I know support a lot of men’s issues, as well as ones that relate to women. There are a lot of feminist issues that overlap with men’s causes (rape, for example, can happen to both genders) and feminist issues that could have a positive impact on men’s issues (for example, legitimizing home work and care would make it more socially possible for men to be active parents, because it would no longer be considered ‘demeaning’).
But saying that feminists support men’s issues, or that feminism can help ease the burden of some men’s issues is not the same as saying that feminism will ‘cure’ the issues. It doesn’t imply that men should have to do no work because feminism has them covered. Feminists are not solely responsible for fixing all of the ills of this world. The implication that feminists have to dedicate at least 50% of their time and funding to men’s work or else they’re anti-man is just not right.
Wylee: “But saying that feminists support men’s issues, or that feminism can help ease the burden of some men’s issues is not the same as saying that feminism will ‘cure’ the issues.”
Then maybe someone should tell these feminists that because, day in and day out, we always hear how feminism is the movement for equality and equal rights between the sexes. How if we don’t agree with it, we’re dubbed anti-feminist and against equality. At worst, women haters and wife beaters. Not to mention how certain strands seem to have this obsession with categorizing everything as a feminist issue, sidestepping the fact that certain problems affect ALL HUMAN BEINGS!
Wylee: “It doesn’t imply that men should have to do no work because feminism has them covered.”
This reasoning is used as a popular shaming tactic for male victims and people in support of male victims. That if they would get off their butts and build shelters, then things would be better. Always bragging about how women had to do the same thing without realizing those shelters weren’t built and formed solely by them alone and had help from men who were sympathetic and supportive to their issues.
As much as I’m a little more open minded, thanks to actual egalatarian feminists on this board, this very thing right here still bugs me a lot.
I have literally never heard anyone say that if you don’t self-identify as a feminist, that that means that you beat women. I think that you may be stretching things a bit too far. And i don’t understand your viewpoint. One sentence you’re saying that you don’t think that feminism supports cross-gendered issues, and the next you say that they champion causes that affect the whole world. Which is it? Feminism brought the woman’s POV on certain issues (such as rape) to the public eye and that exposure can, potentially, help all people with those issues. There were a lot of issues, such as sexuality, rape, domestic abuse, etc. that were just taboo before feminism. Now that there’s a discussion of these issues, the audience can be broadened and the topics enlarged. That doesn’t mean that feminism is “taking the charge” on these broader issues, but it does mean that it supports them. Plenty of causes (such as the push against homophobia) were benefited by things that feminism directly or indirectly introduced into society (such as the notion of sexual freedom).
It’s not a shaming tactic to encourage people to champion and work towards their own causes. Women absolutely have a responsibility to assist wherever possible, but men do need to become more organized. There are a lot of tasks (fund raising, petitioning, approaching law makers, getting news coverage) that require enormous amounts of hours. As I’m sure you know, there are a lot of really entrenched attitudes and laws and systems that need to be changed in order for men to have the environment that they need. It is just not realistic to think that activist women can add these tasks to their already-packed schedule of supporting their current causes. The causes need new members. For good causes, if men got together a petition, I would expect women to sign it. If men gathered news coverage of certain issues, I would expect women to watch it. If men organized a march, I would expect women to march. But all of this is different than saying that if women do not take the lead on issues, that they’re anti-man.
“How if we don’t agree with it, we’re dubbed anti-feminist and against equality”
I’m pretty sure that you’re doing the exact same thing, here…
I have literally never heard anyone say that if you don’t self-identify as a feminist, that that means that you beat women.
I’ve never heard that “beat women” part either. But have heard “you’re a bigot”, “you support the rape and beating of women”, “you’re against equality”, “you hate women”, “you don’t respect women”, and in a (hopefull) joking manner from a comdian “you might as well kill yourself”. I’m not convined what Eagle said that much of a stretch.
It’s not a shaming tactic to encourage people to champion and work towards their own causes.
No its not shaming. But it can be silencing when that “encouragment” is followed with the expectation that they work towards other people causes while telling them they have to handle their own causes on their own.
But saying that feminists support men’s issues, or that feminism can help ease the burden of some men’s issues is not the same as saying that feminism will ‘cure’ the issues.
The trick is there are those among them that actually do prop feminism up as “the cure” (for example Amanda Marcotte, a feminist that generalized all MRAs as wanting “the right to rape and beat women”, did a post here where she claimed that feminism is the solution for men’s issues).
It doesn’t imply that men should have to do no work because feminism has them covered.
No but it does lead to the implication that if men aren’t working under the banner of feminism then the work either doesn’t count or its instantly labeled something negative.
It is just not realistic to think that activist women can add these tasks to their already-packed schedule of supporting their current causes.
I agree its not realistic. You know what else isn’t realistic? Trying to work with them but getting pushed away for being male while at the same time being told that men aren’t trying to do their part.
Either they are willing to work with people of all walks of life or they are not. They don’t get to have it both ways.
Amanda Marcotte, a feminist that generalized all MRAs as wanting “the right to rape and beat women”,
Actually that’s not what Marcotte said that bit about MRAs was from another feminist site. Marcotte stated here that PUAs are, “embittered jerks that are mad because they aren’t getting as much pussy as they think they deserve”.
I’ve never heard that “beat women” part either. But have heard “you’re a bigot”
I mean… I guess it just depends on the context. Sometimes, people actually are bigots. Sometimes they’re called that unfairly. I know that discussions of feminism definitely do bring out the bigots, particularly on the internet. I also know that, as is the case with any large group, you’re always going to have members that go overboard. I’ve seen that happen, too. Perhaps our experiences are just different, but most of the feminists that I talk to are actually very reasonable about supporting men’s issues.
But it can be silencing when that “encouragment” is followed with the expectation that they work towards other people causes while telling them they have to handle their own causes on their own…No but it does lead to the implication that if men aren’t working under the banner of feminism then the work either doesn’t count or its instantly labeled something negative.
I don’t recall anything in this article, or in any of the comments (particularly mine) that said that people who champion abuse awareness of men also have to be activists for the female viewpoint. I think that men and women should support each others’ causes in an emotional sense and in their day-to-day actions, but they aren’t obligated to “work” towards any causes but their own.
for example Amanda Marcotte
You can see my other comment, but i do not particularly agree with her. I hate that everyone cites her because I really can’t stand most of her stuff.
Trying to work with them but getting pushed away for being male while at the same time being told that men aren’t trying to do their part.
Once again, this is pretty vague and without other details I can’t tell what exactly happened. What counts as being “pushed away”? What was being asked of them when you were “trying to work with them”? are you sure that you were pushed away for being a white male, or were there potentially other causes? I mean, I could go on. I really have no clue about the situation you’re referencing.
I’ve seen that happen, too. Perhaps our experiences are just different, but most of the feminists that I talk to are actually very reasonable about supporting men’s issues.
Lucky you. I’m just finding them now.
I don’t recall anything in this article, or in any of the comments (particularly mine) that said that people who champion abuse awareness of men also have to be activists for the female viewpoint.
I didn’t mean to imply such (which is why I put in the “can”).
You can see my other comment, but i do not particularly agree with her. I hate that everyone cites her because I really can’t stand most of her stuff.
You’re a rare one that will actually say something. Actually I take that back its not that you are rare. People who don’t like her stuff are just almost universally assumed to be angry anti-feminists. If you go back in look in the posts she did here there was venomous disagreement as well civil disagreement. But somehow her supporters magically only cause the venom (Hugo Schwyer had this same problem around here).
Once again, this is pretty vague and without other details I can’t tell what exactly happened. What counts as being “pushed away”?
I’ll use body image. A while back when I was first trying to come to terms with my body image issues I came across feminists who talked about body issues. One thing that seemed to come up among them was wondering why more fat men were getting involved with them. I dared to speak up and say that at least part of the reason was that when it came to fat shaming even talking specifically about men on this topic it was often twisting into being all about women (such as saying that fat shaming of men has nothing to do with our gender, how when people insult fat men “the real” problem is that the insults are usually anti-women, and how when men do speak up one of the first things we are often told is that “women have it worse”). Oh they didn’t like that.
Their response? I only felt that way because I was denying my male privilege.
That was a few years ago and I pretty much haven’t looked back. They had their chance at getting ally and they choose to piss it away because they were too scared of being challenged on their disregard for men. And even just a few months ago I did a post on men and body image issues and at Womanist Musings and right out the gate the first two comments were “well yeah it sucks for men but its really worse for women”.
I’m running the risk of old wounds opening up so I’ll end here.
The first thing that I want to add (I really could do a whole article on the topic) is that I think what is missing from a lot of the gender discussions is tact.
Tact.
The issues that gender discussions center around are, almost by definition, very emotional and triggering and very deeply, deeply ingrained into people’s personalities. Rejecting a view point very much feels like a personal rejection because the viewpoints are so personal in nature. This comes through loud and clear in your post. I’m sorry that you felt rejected by these people.
Unfortunately, most people lack tact. They lack it even more when they’re hurt and angry and anonymous on the internet. They may reply with valid points, but they do it out of turn, or in ways that are unnecessarily aggressive or insensitive. Or, they may respond with points that are no-so-valid, but seem right to the hurt, wounded person they are. Conversations break down because it’s usually very difficult to get very emotional people to behave with tact.
The “one-upping” that you mentioned is absolutely rampant in gender conversations. It happens on both sides, from men and from women. And the reason for this is because everyone in these discussions brings their own baggage and own hurts to the table and they’re all trying to find some comfort. Everyone feels like compassion is in pretty short supply, so they’re literally fighting for attention and sympathy. Don’t pay attention to that person’s pain, look at mine! My pain is bigger! It’s more valid! I need help and attention more than they do! Once again, this happens across all groups. The one defining characteristic of gender conversations is that every participant is very, very hurt in some way.
If you have link to your post, I’d like to read it.
If you could do and article on it, I’m quite sure we’d love to see it! Please contact me if you are interested, julie@goodmenproject.com
Agreed.
Everyone feels like compassion is in pretty short supply, so they’re literally fighting for attention and sympathy.
While that does happen I also think that there is another belief of, “this group of people deserve validation and sympathy but this one doesn’t” based on nothing more than what groups you’re talking about. For example people who think that female victims of violence should be helped but male victims shouldn’t.
Maybe its how certain groups have intersected in the past there is a belief that if you show compassion and sympathy for one group that inherenty means you don’t care about the other. For example people who want false rape accusers to be prosecuted is branded as not caring about rape victims.
In my examples I’m trying to say that its not about how much sympathy/compassion there is to go around but a matter of simply not wanting certain people to have those things extended to them for no other reason than they are a part of that group. For example people who try to say that a woman that was dressed a certain way doesn’t deserve sympathy/compassion/support/justice because of the way she was dressed. (“She was wearing what? Well duh she was asking for it.”)
Its all about old wounds. One of the biggest questions I’ve never been able to answer in the gender discourse is how to give everyone a fair chance at airing their greivances and settle them once and for all (because seriously telling someone to “just get over it” is more likely to send them further over the edge). Because until that happens true progress will never, and I mean NEVER, be possible.
I personally have a vengeance streak a mile wide (one of the few parts of Scorpio horoscope that is true about me). I joke with myself that if the Vengeance Demons from Buffy the Vampire Slayer were real I’d certainly be one by now. A desire for revenge can destroy a conversation. It is not easily satiated (it can be satiated but its very difficult to do and often comes at the cost of doing massive amounts of damage).
I’m at work so I can’t get you that link (Womanist Musings and my blog are both blocked at work) now but I’ll get it to you this evening.
Okay Wylee my reply got a bit long do you have an email address I can send you those links to?
(if you don’t want it out in the open could you contact me instead at:
dannybois-dot-corner-at-gmail-dot-com?)
Here you go:
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/01/who-am-i-you-ask-names-danny-and-im.html
And while Renee herself doesn’t ID as feminist I know that a good portion of her readership does and I’ve learned that the hard way. I messed around and did another post talking about how teaching boys a destructive sexuality that includes being forceful with girls harms boys too is a false equivalency based on an attempt to say that boys are harmed just as much by it as girls (http://www.womanist-musings.com/2012/02/we-are-still-heading-for-self.html).
And as much as people want to go on about “derailing”, “trolling”, and “threadjacking” its clear to me that even when the focus is on guys its still wrong to talk them in any other capacity than the bad things we do.
Thank-you for the article on being an overweight male. I too get the sense that quite a few people feel it’s worse as an overweight female vs a male although I think both can be quite bad. I see the same kinds of insecurity, I don’t like my photo taken, I don’t like going shirtless at the beach/etc, I feel quite insecure in public especially around younger people who generally are much thinner.
It’s annoying as hell though to hear n see the derailing where womengetitworse, I think the only reason people assume that to be true is because men generally keep it inside n unspoken more.
No problem Archy. I would personally like to get away from the “who has it worse” thing to (and to Renee’s credit she wasn’t the one that brought that shit up and did try to diffuse it).
Wylee writes:
“I have literally never heard anyone say that if you don’t self-identify as a feminist, that that means that you beat women.”
Firstly Eagle said “worst case”. This may be rare, but it does happen on feminist boards. What IS very common is that if you make it clear that you do not believe in or support (or oppose) feminism, it is tossed around that you are anti-equality.
Not only do a great deal of feminists posting on blogs believe that feminism = equality, but they believe that it is the one and only true way to get to equality.
There is a great deal of attacks, slurs, and name-calling that occur when you go onto a feminist board and try to raise issues that pertain to the post, but talk about them in a way in which they affect men.
Not to, you know, sound like a broken record…but the same could be said of going to MRM sites. In general (not just with regards to feminism or the MRM), I think people are quick to jump to the conclusion that someone is attacking them when they don’t agree 100% with what they’re saying…or when they agree but bring up a different aspect of the issue they’re discussing. This is especially problematic via the internet where we don’t have tone of voice and body language to help explain someone’s intended meaning. Plus, we have the anonymity to call people names without any social repercussions.
The difference is that when MRAs sink to personalising and ad hominem attacks other MRAs actually call them out on it and pull them back in line, in other words there is some attempt at restraint.
I have observed this on more than one occassion and I have repeatedly advised MRAs to avoid emotionalising / personalising as it is self – defeating and counter productive. I am not saying that this attempt to counteract personal insults, etc does not happen on femenist sites, but I’ve never come across it. Perhaps someone could give me some examples.
Yes, it’s me again. I’ll try not to kill the dialogue with brutal honesty this time, often my childlike honesty is mistaken for being opinionated so I’ll exercise caution.
Funny, cuz I do the same thing to feminists. Actually I do the same thing to MRAs too…I tend to call out bigotry wherever I see it. I know plenty of other people, feminists, MRAs, neither…who do this too.
Heather,
By the fact that you are posting on a sight for men’s stories, I would say you’re somewhat of a statistical outlier.
When I go onto sights like jezebel, ampersand, feministing or other feminist sights, I never see posters correcting hateful anti-male commenters. NEVER
In fact, I don’t remember what article it was on, but a commenter here on tgmp posted a link from one of the heavy-hitter feminist web-pages that was discussing domestic violence (or maybe the topic was MRAs).
A poster mentioned the dearth of services for male DV victims, and the lack of feminist awareness of this issue.
I saw two responders to this poster about 4 posts apart.
The first said something like: “Let men build their own shelters like we did”. (This is a common mantra I see regurgitated constantly from individual feminists on feminist boards: women’s issues are everybody’s business, but men’s issues certainly aren’t HER business)
The second commenter said: “Absolutely feminism is about equality”.
See the disconnect? They both tear apart the original poster commenting about the dearth of male DV resources (and lack of feminist awareness) from diametrically opposed positions (f*ck men let them advocate for themselves and Yes feminism does care about men).
What’s interesting is that the last poster was ONLY concerned with trying to prove that feminism cares about men to an outsider, but NOT concerned with correcting the anti-male bias so evident in her own group that proved her wrong.
What IS very common is that if you make it clear that you do not believe in or support (or oppose) feminism, it is tossed around that you are anti-equality.
I think that the problem here is that ‘feminism’ is a very broad umbrella. When you say “I don’t believe in feminism”, you may have in your mind a few, specific items that you disagree with. Someone else may have in mind a few, more general items like “the right to vote” or “the right to an education.” When you make such broad statements, it does seem to indicate that you’re against all of what feminism believes in, even now-accepted standards of equality like those i mentioned above. It’s okay to disagree with a viewpoint, but it’s always good to make sure that people know, exactly, what you disagree with and why.
…when you go onto a feminist board and try to raise issues that pertain to the post, but talk about them in a way in which they affect men.
This one relates to my views on tact. It’s okay to introduce alternate viewpoints into a conversation, but it must be done in a way that is open, conversational, and respectful of the dialog already in process. People tend to get their hackles up when it seems like someone is trying to steamroll the conversation. That goes for all conversations – gender-related or not.
Screw you.
(Kidding).
Sorry I couldn’t resist. I totally agree with what you’re saying here.
Wylee,
You assume and put the emphasis on the poster as in they are not following rules of etiquitte, rather than accepting our stories that there are many sites that are VERY radically anti-male.
Please explain how things could be the fault of the poster for disagreeing with:
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
Feminists who supposedly decry equality demeaning and dehumanizing male victims of dv.
*this* is the kind of attitude that we face.
The simple fact that a lot of these echo-chambers seem to view that men are going to get what they deserve because it’s time for pay-back for the mothers and grandmothers who were oppressed (as if these women’s dads and grandfathers also weren’t oppressed as men).
While a good portion of feminism I would say is kind-hearted, by it’s nature of women 1st! it attracts a lot of man-hating women. These women have a lot of influence on the feminist-engineered laws that are being passed.
A lot of these haters use female victimhood as a shroud to actually pass a lot of very harmful anti-male, anti-father laws that do harm men, but they also harm children (fatherless children are demonstrably proven to be at much greater risk for a huge host of different social issues from teen pregnancy to alcoholism, low educational attainment and suicide).
Why the default presumption that I or Keevo (or the posters we witnessed) did something wrong?
Eagle34 responded, but I think the post may have been nicked due to some rough language. I do want to reply, though.
“Then you haven’t read the likes of Amanda Marcotte or Hugo Schwartzer who have published articles here”
As I’ve stated before on this site, there are many different types of feminism and many points of contention, even among people who all self-identify as ‘feminists’. I’ll be the first to say that I really do not like Amanda Marcotte. I think that her arguments are usually very flimsy and are typically more interested in having a strong point than with having a fair or reasonable point. Hugo I generally like, but even then I very strongly disagree with many of his articles. So, there is variety in feminism.
“All then framed as women’s problems only”
Issues were labeled as “women’s issues” mainly because it was mostly women who were interested in them and vocal about them. Take, for example, the Women section of many major publications. They are women’s interest sections, not sections about women. There’s some overlap, but label of an issue tends to be more about its audience than its writers. As men become more active in these discussions, they will less and less be seen as “women’s” issues.
“Well it should’ve been broadened from the very effing start because then it would’ve been easier for me to share my story of having been hurt by girls and women in addition to men and boys without having my pain minimised or dismissed as not important in the former.”
First I would like to say that your pain is every bit as valid as any other abuse victim. If anyone minimized or dismissed what happened to you, that was very wrong of them and I very strongly do not agree with their viewpoints. I’m sorry that your story has not been an easy one to share. It is very clear that you do not feel supported in your struggles. I applaud your strength and hope that you will continue to advocate for this.
As another poster mentioned, hindsight is 20/20. A lot of the movements that made progress for female abuse victims have roots stretchering back into the 1830s. If data on male abuse victims is scarce today, it was even more scarce then. I agree that it would have been best to have more vocally included male victims from the get-go. However, I disagree with the implication that the oversight was due to malice or lack of concern. Now that what’s done is done, our current society needs to take up this fight anew. As always, the most effective proponents are always those that have first hand experience with the cause they’re supporting.
“Not many people care about men’s issues and precious few people will give the news coverage you speak of the light of day compared to women’s issues… Only TWO articles, TWO measely articles on girls and women who bully and hurt boys and men. One of them is outdated, the other was written by me for this site here”
I agree that this quantity is not enough. However, we have to identify what the real issue is. Are many articles being written and submitted and the editors are not publishing them? Or is there a lack of this type of media that could be published? These questions matter. If the bottleneck is the first, the onus is the editors to prioritize these view points. If the the latter is the case, then it’s up to activists to drum up the content that will spread their message – just like you did. Given the fact that your article was published, I do tend to think that the editors are not screening out this type of content. It could very well be the case that more people are willing to publish this content than you think – maybe they simply do not have the type and quantity of content that is needed.
I think that you and I both agree that women ought to be sympathetic to men who have been abused. I think that we agree that women should be expected to support this cause in an emotional sense. The only thing that I can see is that we disagree on form that it must take. I think that women can support the cause even if they don’t consider themselves ‘activists’ of it. Men have done a lot of good in the feminist cause, and the bulk of it has been related to adopting the viewpoint of equality on a day-to-day bases, rather than anything typically considered ‘activism’ (although there are great examples of that, too). I think that something similar is possible here from women, as well.
Precisely correct Eagle.
Eagle writes:
“Yes, Nick, it has. Certain parts of it love to tout how solving women’s problems would solve men’s problems. About how it’s all about equality.”
Marcotte had an article in June or so of last year stating specifically that men’s issues would be solved with MORE feminism, because feminists fight for equality for BOTH genders.
Those at the top of political feminist orgs have been saying they fight for equality for the past 30 years while actively fighting against recognition of male victims of violence, and other mens issues.
Look at the harrassing by feminists of Erin Prizzey who was the founder of the battered women’s shelter movement in the UK. She planned on opening a shelter for men and publicly stated that many of the women who were coming to the shelters were just as or more violent (especially to their own children) as the men they were escaping from.
For fighting for EQUALITY she was threatened with bomb threats and threatened with personal harm to her and her family by feminists who took over the shelter movement and turned it into a political goody bag for financing radical feminism.