This comment was from wellokaythen on the post “Five Ways Feminism Helps Men“
It seems like much of the criticism about feminism here suggests an all-or-nothing approach, that you can’t accept any particular aspects of feminist ideas without accepting ALL versions of it. Like, somehow NO part of feminism can be mutually beneficial to men and women because some strands of feminism act at the expense of men. Like all parts of feminism are therefore tainted by the extremists, somehow.
Besides reminding me of a religious point of view (any compromise with Satan is just playing into Satan’s hands), it also reminds me of the anticommunism in the U.S. during the Cold War. There was the duck test – if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck. Therefore, anything that looked remotely similar to communism in any way was, to all intents and purposes, the enemy. Along the truly reprehensible things that Stalinist-style communism threatened, there were also such horrible party platforms as racial equality for African Americans, equal hourly wages for women and men, and the right to form unions.
So, anything that had any overlap with any of that was communism. Martin Luther King, Jr., calling for an end to segregation? Obviously a commie, because that’s what commies talk like. Give commies an inch and before you know it they will have corrupted your bodily fluids and you’ll be speaking Russian. The AMA was against the government providing the polio vaccine, because that’s what socialized medicine does, and that’s just the slippery slope to communist domination.
I can’t help but notice something similar sometimes when the word “feminism” comes up. By definition, feminism is just the enemy by its very nature. (There’s something to the “-ism” suffix that makes stuff sound especially sinister.) Somehow it’s a monolith directed by Dworkin just like all communism was directed by the Kremlin. Stalin, Dworkin, whatever, same difference. If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism, and if it does nothing to renounce feminism then it is soft on feminism and therefore suspect as well. Any woman suggesting anything that sounds like feminism is a feminist, and as we all know all feminism is essentially anti-male, so the logic is clear.
It’s airtight, coherent, circular logic that dispenses with all criticism. (Ironically, a bit like many forms of Marxist-Leninism.)
But you know, even hardcore anticommunists like Nixon and Reagan could recognize the possibility of mutual benefit when negotiating with the enemy. Perhaps feminism and anti-feminism could use a little détente?
—
photo: ladybug / flickr
The problem that feminism presents is that its a polemic. Its unyielding, its viewed as the one truth, will not own up to flaws and problems … I think that’s why the gender debate is in such a stalemate when it comes to feminism.
“will not own up to flaws and problems”
This is false. The difference between second-wave and third-wave feminism, for example, is that a bunch of feminists realized a bunch of flaws in second-wave feminism and decided that should change. Now it might not be owning up to some specific flaws that you would like it to own up to. However, feminism (or rather, feminisms) attempts to correct its problems fairly often.
Heather.
that was internal, and the differing waves are strategic ones. It will not own up to flaws outside of the monolith and engage in fair debate with others on the outside.
Good point. Historically, that’s one reason why there have been waves in the first place. There have been generational changes in feminism and differences of opinion between older and younger feminists. Sometimes the generation gap has been enormous. Sometimes feminism has surged and retreated. In the U.S., the former suffrage activists in the 1920’s were incredibly disappointed in their daughters’ generation, because their daughters seem to have gone off in the “wrong” direction. “We got you the right to vote, and you spend your time being a flapper, smoking cigarettes and drinking liquor with men in a speakeasy. That’s how… Read more »
The cig. smoking suffragette/flapper was a media creation.
A PR company used the image and actors playing suffragettes gaining equality by smoking to market smoking to women.
What I think is happening is that Jimmy and I are coming from very different assumptions or at least very different experiences with feminism. Or, different perspectives on feminism based somewhat on different definitions. I’d say that is an accurate characterization, and I’d say that there are probably other differences as well. (We may not even agree on what our main difference are.) (I am using third person language here not to cut anyone off or talk like they aren’t here, but to keep the discussion more open than a two-person conversation.) For example, in terms of men who feel… Read more »
That was an incredibly open-minded post. You’re right that I don’t know if you’re a man or a woman or even a committee of people. Regardless, I like the way you write. I like that you ask so many questions and I like that you draw analogies. My point is that many men believe that we have been and are currently being discriminated against based on our sex. While you are right that just because they believe this doesn’t make it true, it is a heavy indicator. While criticism is a necessary tool for reconsidering our beliefs, criticism without an… Read more »
Thanks for the encouragement. I can see how my messages did not seem all that useful in a practical sense of making specific changes. We probably agree on more things than might be evident in the previous discussion. Excellent points, excellent questions.
(Lesson to others: THIS is how you make me feel bad. Be nice to me after I act like a sarcastic jerkface, so I look like a heel. Then I REALLY feel like a schmuck…. : – ) )
You look like a powerfully creative intellectual, not a heel, and I certainly hope you don’t feel bad at all. I think that what you post is really eye-opening and I look forward to reading more of what you have to say.
I just hope we can find some middle ground.
– Do we discount the cries for help from men and continue to demand that they “be good?” I see feminism in its many forms is unrelated to goodness in men. Feminism is not about men, and it has no need to be. We don’t generally believe a bricklayer has many insights into neuro-surgery, why would we consider feminism had anything to contribute to men’s issues? Until we stop trying to ram this square peg of feminism into the round hole of “being for all women and men” the dialogue will be stalled. In a time when men are abjured… Read more »
Jimmy,
Thank you for your thoughtful and passionate response. You have given me much to think about and explore about myself. Namaste.
“It’s airtight, coherent, circular logic that dispenses with all criticism. (Ironically, a bit like many forms of Marxist-Leninism.)”
The irony is that is exactly how one would describe your arguments against the criticism of feminism. I mean besides the airtight part. Falsely representing what others have said and using your own definitions for words are not the hallmarks of an “airtight” argument.
I have noticed that many women (and some men) on this website, rather than try to understand why men would criticize feminism and hold grievances against the movement, instead seek to argue with them in an attempt to either convince them that feminism isn’t as bad as they think, or in an attempt to belittle and shame them for holding negative views of feminism. I understand that some of you hold feminism in high regard. What I don’t understand is what you are trying to accomplish. 1. Without getting into any specifics, it is safe to say that many men… Read more »
I believe that I have been helped by writings and advances in psychology on the subject of recovery from rape that would not exist if feminism hadn’t started dialogue on the subject. On the other hand, only recently have I discovered a rape recovery group for men, and have not been able to join women’s only groups. So I do not see it as a contradiction to say that feminism has helped some men in some ways and hurt other men in other ways.
I think the real issue here is one that we actually see pretty often from feminists who don’t support men’s rights. They tend to use shaming tactics and logical fallacies in an effort to diminish the grievances of men. WOT has done just that here by painting a picture of men who have no actual grievances against feminism but instead blame everything on it. I’ll say it again. I’m amazed the mods allowed this comment in the initial thread, let alone created one out of it. This is not a step towards building a bridge towards understanding, this is nothing… Read more »
Feminism’s concern is for women; as I have pointed out before I do not rail at my baker because he doesn’t sell automotive spare parts, neither do I expect feminism to address men’s issues. Men need something of their own, organisations to attend to men’s issues. I believe some feminists try to make it seem as if feminism is for men because they are worried if men get mobilised, they will draw attention and money away from women’s issues.
So my comment above is “awaiting moderation”. Can someone please tell me why? It’s civil, no personal attacks , no foul language, and it’s on topic!
Was it long or had multiple links? Sometimes they’re randomly caught up in moderation.
I guess this site is becoming like those other ‘Gynocentric’ sites. Even if you obey all the rules, if the ‘Moderator’ doesn’t like what you have to say, ‘Poof’ , your comment ‘Disappears’
Hello Everyone,
Just letting everyone know that we’re a couple moderators short this week. If your comment ends up in moderation for an extended period chances are that’s the reason. Please have patience. Thanks.
It works the other way too Bob.
“If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism.”
Can you believe this demeaning generalization about the way men talk on this website about feminism was allowed by the mods?
Gynocentric indeed.
Use egalitarianism, it’d probably solve quite a few issues. Everyone get together and work to end the rights issues for all humans, everyone equal under law, etc.
For some reason feminist are vehemently opposed to calling themselves humanists or egalitarians instead of feminists.
I for one think that says a lot about them.
Except for the feminists who do call themselves egalitarian and humanists. I, for one, identify with all three labels.
The key phrase was “instead of”
There is a fundamental difference between a humanist and a feminist.
Humanist, feminist and egalitarian are all three distinct terms which are not mutually exclusive, but are separate. You were implying that feminists eschew the labels of egalitarian and humanist. I was pointing out that there are feminists to embrace all three.
“You were implying that feminists eschew the labels of egalitarian and humanist.”
No, I’m implying nothing. I’m directly stating that if a person calls themselves a feminist instead of or in addition to a humanist or an egalitarian I think it says a lot about them.
Humanism is about human rights. Egalitarianism is about equality. Feminism is about women’s rights.
” If it’s something I don’t like, then it’s feminism, and if it does nothing to renounce feminism then it is soft on feminism and therefore suspect as well.”
And this is belittling the real and honest criticisms that many thoughtful men wrote in that thread. I’ve read other pro-feminist comments from you and understand you’re a staunch supporter but frankly this is just crude and insulting. I thought you were more intelligent than this reply indicates.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I love it when comments that appear to be critical help me prove my original point. First off, let me get this out of the way: I have already stipulated elsewhere that I am a horrible person, and that I will agree with every analysis of my motivations. If someone says I’m pro-feminist, that’s what I am. If someone says I’m anti-feminist, that’s what I am. Whatever label anyone would like to use, I accept it. (May I say, though, I’ve always thought of myself as too lazy and cynical to be a “staunch” anything,… Read more »
P.S. I almost forgot the most delicious irony. In the U.S. and many other Western countries in the twentieth century, many male political leaders saw women’s suffrage as move AGAINST radicalism. The thinking for many political leaders was that women would naturally be somewhat conservative, especially when it came to dealing with the threat of Bolshevism, socialism, etc. They assumed that women would never support such “anti-family” things as the Communist Party, so therefore granting women the right to vote could prevent the radicals from taking over. So, sort of like feminism as a bulwark against communism.
“I see overly simplistic analysis of feminism going on sometimes on the GMP.” Here’s where you are waaay off target. No one was analyzing feminism but you. All those men were posting comments explaining their *lived experiences* as a result of feminist backed legislature. We were talking about *real things* (laws that discriminate against us, funding for only women etc.) We were talking about the actions taken by the movement, and you are now talking about the ideas of the movement. You are comparing apples to oranges. “In my broad definition of feminism, any time women have voted is a… Read more »
“It seems like much of the criticism about feminism here suggests an all-or-nothing approach, that you can’t accept any particular aspects of feminist ideas without accepting ALL versions of it. Like, somehow NO part of feminism can be mutually beneficial to men and women because some strands of feminism act at the expense of men. Like all parts of feminism are therefore tainted by the extremists, somehow.” You’re making something vague that isn’t vague at all. I’ll say it again: if you want to see how feminism has harmed men just look at the laws and bills that it has… Read more »
I don’t know how I missed this viewpoint, but I think it’s spot on. I made a similar comment further down the thread, but I used a weaker metaphor, and I believe that this piece really says it all. There is no question in my mind that there are good aspects to feminism, and that these aspects have benefited out society. For the purpose of moving the conversation forward, I would like to suggest that the reaction which Wellokaythen aptly describes probably has something to do with the form of feminist arguments. Let me give a quick example: Feminist: My… Read more »
Very good point here. There are forms of feminism (and many other modern “-isms”) that present very simplistic, attack-format arguments. There are many political ideologies and sub-ideologies that rely on guilt by association, shame tactics, equivocation, and binary thinking. I admit on occasion I have relied on the whole “slippery slope” fallacy myself, because it is just so damn tempting. What’s fascinating to me is how so many political spectra are curved – go far off to the left and to the right and the two mortal enemies begin to resemble each other more and more. (That conversation is a… Read more »
Simple solution: Don’t change the definition of common parlance words. If you need a new definition for a word pick a neologism so we don’t waste time playing lawyer. (IE spend 5 pages establishing definition of the payor and payee)