Justin Cascio names five ways feminism helps men.
Can’t think of a single reason why men should support feminism? Here are five.
- Gives us equal partners. For men who have women in their lives as co-parents, lovers, wives, partners, clients, and associates, it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.
- Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles. Women have changed what it means to be a woman. Even women who don’t call themselves feminists have had their ideas of themselves shaped by feminism. Women who imagine themselves pursuing a career, or even imagine themselves having choices of whether and when to become a wife or a mother, owe their freedom to choose to feminist thought. As men, we have had our lives changed just as helplessly as the women have. We have the same power, as men, to consciously shape what we think a man should be, and how to live up to the standards we create. Feminism taught us it can happen.
- Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions. Through feminist dialogue and consciousness raising, women began to realize that their identities as wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters were colored by their other identities: as human beings, citizens, workers, artisans, people of color, people with disabilities, queer people… the list of identities goes on, and the ways they overlap filter our experiences and to some degree determine who we are. Men are as subject to these double and triple yokes that tell us what we should be doing or caring about.
- Encourages us to speak in our own voices.Betty Friedan identified a problem without a name, and began a conversation that hasn’t stopped. There are problems that men have that don’t have names, because we are not encouraged to talk with one another about our lives in the same ways, and because we want our stories to fit into the patterns that already exist: to make sense of them. By having the courage to talk about our experience, even when it doesn’t match our ideas of what a man does or feels, we can begin to learn what our common experiences are, and to name them.
- Makes us all more free. Unless all of us are free, none of us are free. As long as women still feel the pulls of gender roles, men are forced by the laws of physics into an equal and opposing position. And as long as anyone in our world is subject to limitations because of an identity like those we construct around sex and gender, race and ethnicity, and our deeply held beliefs and loyalties, then any of us is subject to being limited for who and what we are, or for what we believe in.
—Photo credit: cliff1066™/Flickr
About Justin Cascio
Justin, there’s no ONE feminism (maybe there was in the past).
Just like there’s no just ONE kind of man.
What I see is a wide spectrum, a continuum.
Regarding feminism and men, I mainly see:
- Feminists who consider men friends and allies (what I consider the “true egalitarians”);
- Feminists who are suspicious and wary of men, having mixed feelings about them (they want/like men, as long as men conform to their ways);
- Feminists who focus on women rights alone, disregarding men (they do not hate men, but they don’t care either);
- Feminists who openly and passionately hate and despise men (they see men as “the enemy”).
And all of these categories seem having plenty of numbers (not just a small niche).
Thus, talking about just “feminism” sounds like a heavy and fuzzy generalization (unless you’re talking just about “historical feminism” from the first half of XX century).
And… weren’t generalizations to be avoided on the GMP? 8)
On the money Valter.
Isn’t is just amazing how feminism is not a monolith until it’s time to pull out the positive generalizations?
For the purposes of this article, I’m talking about the social effects of a movement. It’s a huge movement and it contains internal contradictions and it has evolved over decades. I could write a similar one about, say, Christianity, that allows for how a large movement that contradicts itself (there are gay affirming churches, and there’s Fred Phelps and his family, for one example) can still have a coherent meaning, identity, and discernible effect on mainstream society. The points I made about the effects of feminism are not traced to one distinct school of feminist thought, and they don’t deny the existence of SCUM Manifestos, lesbian separatists, or the prejudices of leadership at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival against trans women. The ideals that I have drawn from feminism can be applied to men’s lives. There are also people out there who call themselves feminists, who are hateful toward men, or indifferent, or ignorant. But they don’t get to define all of feminism, any more than Amanda Marcotte gets to decide what all MRAs are like. The total of people who speak out and call themselves feminists get to define what feminism is. I especially don’t accept the definitions of men who don’t identify themselves as feminists. It would be just as inappropriate for me to tell Christians what they believe.
“For the purposes of this article, I’m talking about the social effects of a movement.”
Ok, but I think what Danny means is that when we talk about the negative social effects of the movement called Feminism we never blame it on the monolith. We are instead encouraged to recognize that different groups of feminists have fought for different changes, some of which affect men negatively.
On the money Jimmy.
Is it always wrong to cast feminism as a monolith or is it only wrong to do so when doing so to make a criticism or negative generalization?
I tend to think analogously so I would ask how we refer to other movements:
When we talk about actions attributable to the American government and/or military, do we typically refer to America as a monolith or do we specify that there are different kinds of Americans?
When we talk about the social effects of Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism do we typically refer to them as monoliths or do we specify that there are different kinds of those respective groups?
When we talk about Catholics, Unitarians, Shias, Sunnies et al, do we typically refer to them as monoliths or do we specify that there are different kinds of each one of those religions?
It is my perspective that we tend to view members of these groups as a group and not as individuals with myriad and sometimes conflicting views and values. I think that the very nature of a “movement” is one that implies a general direction of motion. A direction that can be identified by the actions of the group taken as a whole. Every member of the group is accountable for that motion and that direction (even if they oppose it) until the moment they leave the group.
I think that in demanding that a group be seen and considered as so many individuals that can’t be generalized is really just a defense mechanism, one that creates a moving target to guard against criticism.
I think that by joining one of these groups and becoming a self avowed “X” you are giving up a piece of your individuality so that you can belong to said group. And I think when you self identify as a member of a group, you must accept your accountability and responsibility for the actions of that group.
I think it’s a balance between still retaining an individual identity within a group and identifying with a group. With regards to your first example, when I’m abroad and I get asked questions about “Does America really believe such-and-such?” I often have a hard time answering, precisely because there are so many different kinds of Americas. I think general statements about a group are beneficial in some things…and they can help start a conversation about that group. However, I think it’s also important that when individuals within a group point out how their individual beliefs/ideas/ideologies differ from the larger group system, they aren’t ostracised or invalidated.
Another difference, though, among a lot of the groups you mention is that feminism doesn’t actually, technically, have a list of written hard and fast rules or ideas. If we want to talk about the American government as a monolith, we could conceivably turn to it’s list of laws and the Constitution. Same with different religions – they usually have a book (or books) with a list of rules and specific beliefs. Also, same with economies…they usually have rather strict definitions.
Feminism, and many other political ideologies, are not so strict with their definitions, which makes for a lot of different types of feminism.
Feminism, and many other political ideologies, are not so strict with their definitions, which makes for a lot of different types of feminism.
But that doesn’t seem to address how Feminism gets credit for ALL good things done under its auspices, and only certain branches/sects/individuals are responsible for the bad things done — no matter how much the aforementioned represent large groups of Feminists and Feminisms.
It can’t be had both ways. If Feminism is a monolith when they do good, then they are a monolith when they don’t. If Feminism isn’t a monolith — which it isn’t — then their successes need to rightly be recognized as such too. For instance, Feminism got women the vote, but notably that’s not entirely true. Black women still didn’t get to vote. Another example, Feminism championed abortion rights, yet never examined the problem with removing men’s rights to decide for themselves whether they want to be fathers or not.
It’s not that everyone hates Feminism, it’s just that so many of us want Feminism (and Feminists) to own its faults and failures instead of trying to sweep them under the rug for fear of damaging the cause. We want Feminism (and Feminists) to recognize the harm they’ve done/are doing to a diverse group of Americans, and to take appropriate steps to correct that harm.
Notably though, I myself don’t place Feminists like yourself, and Julie, and Joanna in the above categories, because I’ve personally seen you take those steps that I mentioned. However, as for the rest… eh. All I ever seem to see is a bludgeon against legitimate criticism, instead of honest reflection.
Notably though, I myself don’t place Feminists like yourself, and Julie, and Joanna in the above categories, because I’ve personally seen you take those steps that I mentioned. However, as for the rest… eh. All I ever seem to see is a bludgeon against legitimate criticism, instead of honest reflection.
Which creats an ugly situation where the likes of Julie and the other feminists here are basically held responsible for the nastiness of other feminists. I’ll admit I’ve come at the ones here unfairly myself before. And it happens because unlike other feminists who turn their noses up at their critics the ones around here actually listen to people’s greivances.
(Although it is possible that some of them may have been like Julie and the others and eventually turned into what they are now.)
“Which creats an ugly situation where the likes of Julie and the other feminists here are basically held responsible for the nastiness of other feminists.”
I admit guilt on this charge for sure. It actually speaks very well of the GMP, the forum feminists, and the moderators that I’m able to come here and be on my worst behavior. I feel like this is a safe place to talk, and nowhere else would I be able to let loose like I do.
“Another difference, though, among a lot of the groups you mention is that feminism doesn’t actually, technically, have a list of written hard and fast rules or ideas.”
This response completely ignores my premise, namely that:
“you must accept your accountability and responsibility for the *actions* of your group.”
Your responsibility is not predicated on the beliefs or rules of your movement or on your personal beliefs but on its actions and on your membership. For instance I don’t have to agree with all American laws, in fact I don’t, but I am still an American and I am still accountable for the actions of my country. Regardless of America’s beliefs or my belief’s, I belong to a group that does things and I am responsible for those things. Just as a feminist may not agree with all of the actions of feminism as a whole, he or she is still accountable for its actions as a self-avowed member of that group.
“Feminism, and many other political ideologies, are not so strict with their definitions, which makes for a lot of different types of feminism.”
Understandably, however there have been concerted efforts by feminist leaders which feminist followers have rallied behind and changes have been made. Feminism as a whole is accountable for those actions and changes and feminists as individuals of that group are also accountable.
To deny personal accountability is to deny either your membership to the group or the group’s responsibility for a particular act. The different branches of feminism have worked in tandem to effect change despite their differences in belief. That change is the responsibility of the group and hence the individuals.
This really does just look like a game of hot potato.
“I especially don’t accept the definitions of men who don’t identify themselves as feminists.”
Noted. Then you can no doubt understand that I especially don’t accept the definitions of feminists as to what helps men.
good point.
Classic.
What about from feminist men?
Traitors, obviously.
Technically they’re classified as manginas or duderuses, just kidding . I’d accept how feminism has helped them, but they still can’t define my life experience.
With regards to domestic violence and family law, feminism has reinforced gender stereotypes and reduced equality.
With regards to speaking in our own voices, feminists have fought hard (and won, in Canada) to silence the voices of men’s rights advocates.
With regards to changing gender roles, again, family law positions advocated by feminists and legislation such as Title IX, only reinforce gender stereotypes.
The declarative sentences in your article are unqualified assertions that fly in the face of historical legal and social reality.
Telling someone what they believe, and telling someone the actions of the group they are in are 2 different stories however.
Man is a gender. ‘Feminism’ is an ideology. If that ideology isn’t clear, and the people who claim to adhere to that ideology don’t actually share the same ideas, then it isn’t a very strong ideology.
If they don’t actually share one ideology, maybe they should just be little more honest with everyone and admit that they don’t actually share an ideology. This massive defensiveness of ‘how dare you hold my ideology to account for what people who claim that ideology say and do!’ is just ridiculous. If feminists don’t really agree on basic ideological concepts, then they aren’t really feminists at all. They’re just a bunch of tiny movement glomming together and pretending to be an ideology.
Could one say simar things about Christianity since there are such divisionss in that religion?
All Christians, with the exception of a scant few, believe that Jesus rose from the dead after 3 days, and is part of a triune Godhead. And all feminists believe that women are the equals of men.
Regardless of the vast differences in the beliefs of people who call themselves Christians or feminists, I can still criticize “Christianity” and “Feminism.” It’s obviously helpful to add disclaimers like “Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin …” and “Feminists who think all men are potential rapists …” but, I believe, ultimately unnecessary if I conclude (as I do) that MOST Christians believe homosexuality is a sin and MOST feminists think that all men are potential rapists.
If A feminist doesn’t believe all men are rapists can she call herself a feminist? If a Christian doesn’t believe that homosexuality is a sin can they call themselves a Christian
Anyone’s free to call themselves anything.
However, I’d question a person who calls themselves Christian yet doesn’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. I wouldn’t question a person who calls themselves a Christian yet doesn’t believe homosexuality is a sin. I’d call that person in the minority of Christian thought – not in the mainstream. You can apply the same analogy to my feminist example.
Of course she can still be a feminist and of course they can still be a Christian.
I think the issue here is that when individuals of a movement (a group they choose to be a part of) make decisions, those decisions reflect not only on them, but on the group itself. And when a movement makes decisions as a whole (a majority of that group), those decisions reflect on its individual members, even if they don’t agree with them.
This is the nature of an alliance. One is not permitted to be only a fair-weather friend and share in victories and successes but must also accept accountability for the mistakes made by other members of the group.
When there are decisions made that the group or a member doesn’t agree with we see members get exiled or leave of their own accord, and on a larger scale we see schisms. This happens in all movements, except where accountability is shifted like a game of hot potato. A group need take responsibility for its members and the members need take responsibility for the group.
A movement represents a unified front, which is why it’s so powerful. While we try not to generalize about people, by joining a social movement one could say that they have already generalized themselves.
“A movement represents a unified front, which is why it’s so powerful. While we try not to generalize about people, by joining a social movement one could say that they have already generalized themselves.”
Exactly. Otherwise, why belong to the movement?
I tell my kids almost daily that they represent our family, and can enhance or damage our name by what they do, because they are a member, like it or not.
As I’ve said before, if I disagree with members of a social movement I belong to, one of three things must happen:
1. They repent and openly acknowledge their former wrong views or behavior
2. They get knocked out.
3. I’d neither 1 or 2 happen, I would disassociate myself from that group.
If feminism was an egalitarian movemrnt, no anti-male element could exist, its many egalitarians would kick/call them out. That that hasn’t/doesn’t happen speaks for itself.
If there really is a significant number of egalitarians, as some claim, why are they not troubled by the existence of the non-egalitarians?
“As I’ve said before, if I disagree with members of a social movement I belong to, one of three things must happen:
1. They repent and openly acknowledge their former wrong views or behavior
2. They get knocked out.
3. If neither 1 or 2 happen, I would disassociate myself from that group.
If feminism was an egalitarian movemrnt, no anti-male element could exist, its many egalitarians would kick/call them out. That that hasn’t/doesn’t happen speaks for itself.
If there really is a significant number of egalitarians, as some claim, why are they not troubled by the existence of the non-egalitarians?”
I think that this is the most clear argument and question concerning feminist claims to equality I have ever seen. I would really like to see some responses from feminists to this.
@ Jimmy
“f there really is a significant number of egalitarians, as some claim, why are they not troubled by the existence of the non-egalitarians?”
I don’t think that there are when compared with the number of total feminists, but I do think that as a political movement, they see value in numbers so are reluctant to kick anyone out. I think this often results in compromises as they opt for the least common denominator, which is usually benefits and choice for women. Look at the FBI rape definition. It maximizes and recognizes significantly more victims while shielding the vast majority of female rapists thus gendering rape. Perpetrators can only be men and women can only be victims. Women are better served and the movement has a political weapon a win/win for the diverse feminists in the movement by settling for the common denominator.
“I don’t think that there are when compared with the number of total feminists, but I do think that as a political movement, they see value in numbers so are reluctant to kick anyone out. I think this often results in compromises as they opt for the least common denominator, which is usually benefits and choice for women”
I think you’re right on target, John. Unfortunately that comprimise came at the cost of equality, and yet that mantra is still chanted.
Sorry – #2 should’ve been “kicked out” not “knocked out.”
Poor typing, rushing, and autocorrect can be a bad combination!
I don’t know where you are getting your information, but I have a hard time believing your claim that MOST Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and equally ludicrous that MOST women believe men to be potential rapists. Where are you getting your data to support this?
I’m agnostic and have never believed homosexuality to be a sin (nor do I believe in sins – that is far too catholic for me). And men should be allies to women seeking equality. Human beings are meant to be equals. Regardless of categories.
Christianity is a religion – and in truth, it’s now many religions using one catch-all name. All Christians *do* agree on the big facts. They all agree on the divinity of Christ (obviously), and in his resurrection. They all agree on the vast majority of texts that are ‘Holy’. They all keep the same commandments. They only really disagree on minor issues such as the nature of transubstantiation and the role of Mary and the apostles, with a few sects disagreeing on the relationship between Jesus and God, or Satan and God. They then blow those issues up and pretend that they’re major, but that’s mostly political – they’re all in competition for the same followers. It has very little to do with their theology.
I just don’t see how this is comparable.
Well, I guess I should mention the increasing prevalence of ‘end times’ disputes. I assume that’s mostly related to the turn of the millennium. Historically speaking, that’s the most likely reason. ‘The Rapture’ seems like a biggie these days. I’m not particularly religious, and when I did go to church (as a kid, in 1980′s New England), it wasn’t really a thing. I imagine that’s changed, however.
Or it could just be that I moved to Oklahoma, and it’s always been a big thing out here.
We’re getting way way off-topic here, but there’s no agreement among Christians about the end times, except that it means Jesus will come back in some way and he’ll ultimately judge the living and the dead in some way. Some sects, including what you see out there in Oklahoma, I’d imagine, emphasize the heck out of it, but many others don’t really focus on it one way or the other.
Actually, if you look at Christianity historically, the divinity of Jesus has not always been the mainstream consensus. Groups like the Nestorians, Arians, and Bogomils saw Jesus as basically human, gave the early Catholic and Orthodox churches a major rival for followers, were branded as heretics, and persecuted until they were pushed to the fringes. Furthermore, although this is sometimes hard to imagine, putting Jesus at the center of the religion, making Jesus the center and be-all of all Christian theology, is actually something relatively recent. Christians today talk about Jesus much more often than Christians did 500 years ago. Same thing with the focus on the triune nature of the godhead. That’s been far from a constant consensus.
At the very least, one has to recognize that what helped create Christian consensus over past two millennia is burning, suppressing, or expelling people who disagreed and editing key documents in the interest of consistency. (Perhaps there are parallels in modern-day feminist consensus as well?)
I suspect that what many 21st century American Christians say about “mainstream Christianity” applies mostly to 21st century American Christianity. Are all these statements true about Ethiopian Christians, Egyptian Coptics, etc.?
I was so with you, Wellokaythen, until you implied that feminists are being suppressive and exclusionary as a means to better define itself.
I think that might actually be a valid criticism of the movement, that they don’t suppress and exclude members who advocate violence or genocide or act in other ways that are directly harmful to others.
As Jimmy said, his point is, unlike Christians who HAVE expelled those with contradictory beliefs, feminism appears to embrace them, resulting in an inconsistent movement that protects all via constantly shifting an inconsistent definitions.
But the truth is, The feminist movement has expelled those with contradictory beliefs. Christina Hoff Sommers was deemed an anti-feminist by other feminists for her criticisms of the feminist movement and her egalitarian beliefs. As have several others for the same reason.
I was trying to make a gentle suggestion of distant similarity. I was also trying to suggest that it is not only conservative elements that build consensus by exiling non-believers.
I don’t think feminism is burning heretics and torturing opponents per se, but some feminist organizations seem to have purges or splits in their ranks comparable to religious divisions. Nothing like the wars of religion of the 17th century, but still some attempts to build consensus by expelling people with some sort of false consciousness. Within the women’s movements of the 1960’s and 70’s, there was often heated animosity between moderates and radicals.
See Justin’s comment on this as well.
The problem with this is, are these actually the issues men would have wanted addressed? If they’re not, then it’s not really ‘helping’ men. It’s simple paternalism dressed up as ‘help’.
None of these examples are even concrete. You can’t show us anything quantifiable – feminism hasn’t helped keep families together, and it hasn’t helped men stay in their children’s lives (quite the opposite, really). It hasn’t made our quality of life better; it hasn’t increased our income, it hasn’t increased our life expectancy and it hasn’t increased our happiness. It hasn’t made us more free (with perverse ‘domestic abuse threat’ laws, it has made us far less so). It hasn’t helped us be who we want to be – it’s helped women do that, but it hasn’t made a dent in any real male gender-norm. It hasn’t made removed any female privileges – if anything, it’s added quite a few (the absurdity of ‘alimony’ in the modern age, ‘parental’ leave that only women get to take, and which guarantees them custody). It simply seeks to strip male privileges while preserving female ones.
In my experience, whenever someone has to resort to abstractions like this, it’s because they don’t have a real argument to make.
In 1983, I could not have dreamed of the Internet, and so I could not have asked for it. Today, I have it and I love it and am very glad it exists. I’m sure glad Al Gore gave me the internet*, even though I didn’t ask for it. History is full of gifts like this. My religious tradition includes telling the story, every year at Passover, of a series of gifts that we didn’t ask for, but for which we are grateful. I make a point in my article that both women and men are the beneficiaries of the gifts of feminism, without having asked for them. Since I’m talking about the effects of a movement on mainstream society, I’m also saying that we got these gifts even without claiming an identity as feminists. That’s not paternalism, or maternalism. It’s civilization, and privilege.
Feminism, civilization, privilege, history, religion, society, and most of what else we’re all talking about are not concrete nouns, but they’re real and have effect on concrete nouns like Soullite and Justin. I don’t make the quantifiable claims you criticize me for not including, and I’m not up to the challenge of quantifying either happiness or freedom. Feminism helped women learn to be who they want to be, and it’s had two effects on men: one is that as women change, men must also; the second is that men can learn to make the same personal investigations that women have under the tutelage of feminists.
If you have a real argument to make, I encourage you to write it and submit it for publication to The Good Men Project.
* That is a joke.
I just did make a real argument. You chose to ignore it.
That was an amazing argument lol and he completely ignored it.
I especially liked:
“In my experience, whenever someone has to resort to abstractions like this, it’s because they don’t have a real argument to make.”
Because while everything you said is a concrete actual REAL negative effect that is has had on men, he responded with a reference to Al Gore an some jive about “roles and self-discovery” and then claimed YOU didn’t have a real argument.
Aaaaahh the irony!
@Justin Cascio: “Since I’m talking about the effects of a movement on mainstream society, I’m also saying that we got these gifts even without claiming an identity as feminists.”
So, if I get it right, you were talking about feminism as a historical movement (and its consequences on society at large), not much about feminism “right now”.
In this sense, I mostly agree with you: feminism has (on average) changed our society for the better, and men have gained something from it (I know I did).
Then, talking about recent feminismS (plural) and the new “female privileges”, would be another story.
Wow, way to ignore pretty much every single comment posted (exclude the two or three that agree with you) with your “real argument” line. Dismissive much?
Your choices are to take the criticism constructively, or you can assume every single person who disagrees with you is wrong. It’s just a shame you’ve chosen the second choice.
“Feminism helped women learn to be who they want to be, and it’s had two effects on men: one is that as women change, men must also; the second is that men can learn to make the same personal investigations that women have under the tutelage of feminists.”
This is not even close to a true generalization. Fact is, the vast majority of women agree with me.
For example, my wife is a woman and she says that feminism did no such thing for her. She knew who she wanted to be, and still knows, and rejects feminism.
And neither she nor the majority of women and men want anything to do with any “tutelage of feminists.”
Soullite writes:
“It hasn’t helped us be who we want to be – it’s helped women do that, but it hasn’t made a dent in any real male gender-norm.”
In fact, Warren Farrell pointed out in the Myth of Male Power 19 years ago that no-fault divorce laws originally helped crafted by some feminist-minded advocates (to help women leave loveless marriages) have actually worsened the male role.
As Farrell points out, by creating easy one-stop-shot divorce for women to leave less-then-ideal marriages you have have an *intensifying* of the male role.
When a father initiates or has initiated upon him divorce, he is then mostly held responsible for the financial cares and upkeep of a house he no longer resides in, and must finance a 2nd household.
If he expects to secure companionship he must secure additional funds to date. If he re-marries he now must maintain two households. In other words the mothers perusal of her life-choices through divorce costs the man an intensification of his role as provider. In order to maintain two households he now must work even more overtime, or woo business clients, engage office politics, jockey for promotions.
The missing component in many feminist advocates at tgmp is “the voice of men”.
But, when they are confronted with male voices stating feminism is at best neutral (as a whole based on the aggregate affects for/against men on society), we get moderated to death or told we’re full of crap.
I will say this again. The point of our conversations is not to derail feminism. It’s not. If you want to do that, go somewhere else and have the conversation.
If you don’t like the way feminism or The Good Men Project is doing things — start your own movement. That’s what we did.
Lisa,
When twittergate happened and Hugo left, my respect for the volunteers and staff at tgmp grew a lot.
I have been posting here for over a year.
While I still respect you and Tom a lot and have a lot of respect for what you are doing, I have one problem with what I am sensing is a trend here at tgmp.
It seems that when (A) voices for men and (B) the *popular* narrative of feminism butt heads (that narrative being feminism=equality 24/7/365), you are beginning to back away from the rabid support of men that I saw last fall in twittergate. It feels to me like you are more and more trending to less support of A and more support of B when those two things clearly clash.
I don’t know if this is my own bias, or if I’m becoming disgruntled at the moderation policy or what.
In any event, I will try to more clearly state my ideas and issues without hyperbolic statements and broad generalizations about feminism or feminists. If that is the price I have to pay for tgmp mods guarding against posters making generalizations about men or men’s rights, then I guess that is a trivial price to pay.
Good luck in this endeavor. You are stepping on a lot of toes and are getting a lot of flak.
You know the old bomber saying? If you’re getting flak, you know you’re over the target.
I think your last bit is more on the nose than the first bit….or rather, that yes they’re trying to make it so that people don’t go around making hyperbolic statements about any group (feminists, MRM, whatever). It’s not that they’re supporting feminism over male voices, but rather that they’re supporting non-hyperbolic statements. After all, there are men (like, oh yeah Justin…the author of this article)…who are coming out in support of feminism. Which means this article, itself, is the voice of a man. Not all men speak with one voice.
Hi John,
Hah! “You are stepping on a lot of toes and are getting a lot of flak.” — that’s the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. Thanks!
I am going to write a post about what you have said above. But the truth is — we only have one mission — we really really really really want to make this a great place for men to tell stories, and, in the process, help men. We have no ulterior motives. We are not a secret feminist-funded organization. We are not doing this to change men — we are doing this to change society’s perception of men. We love men. If we sometimes talk about the good, the bad, the ugly sides of men — it is only because we are trying to be as honest as we can, as long as it won’t hurt others. We are human. We make mistakes.
The thing about feminism is — we simply don’t want the arguments about why feminism is “not good” that we hear over and over again to derail what we are doing above. That’s it. Yes, some of us like feminists. Some of us are feminists. And some of us disagree or even hate large parts of the movement itself.
But talking about the flaws of feminism is not our goal.
Talking about men is.
But talking about the flaws of feminism is not our goal.
I can understand that but bear in mind that more than likely a lot of the folks here have a lot of experience with the flaws of feminism being actively denied. And what I think has happened is that when the feminists here actually do acknowledge it folks that have been holding out for the chance to find feminists that would actually listen to them go overboard.
Which while it does ease some of the pain is ultimately useless. Let’s face it the snobbish and conceited feminists that refuse to listen to men that disagree with them on certain things while claiming they are our best allies are going to continue doing the same and no amount of telling them is going to change that. All it will do if burn out the good ones at which time the conceited snobs will then pay attention and say that is why they didn’t listen to us. Yes I know that’s totally incorrect but that is what they will do.
Also I think that is why some of the people here have been a bit jumpy on the gun about comment moderation. And speaking of that people let’s lean back a little on it. GMP only has a small group of moderators therefore moderation can only go so fast.
“Let’s face it the snobbish and conceited feminists that refuse to listen to men that disagree with them on certain things while claiming they are our best allies are going to continue doing the same and no amount of telling them is going to change that.”
I agree, but I have a different take on the utility of debate. My comments refuting Feminism’s sometimes bald propaganda are intended for men who might still be on the fence. If the only dialogue concerning Feminism lauds its benefits to men, then those on the fence might believe the movement has no negative effects on men. If the fence-sitters see that it is not a flawless system and that there are indeed problematic areas for men then it might prompt them to think more about Feminism before they commit. It might mean they join with MRM instead, it might even make them better Feminists because they will still support Feminism but they will accept it isn’t perfect and we might build a small group who want to change those parts that are harmful to men.
I prefer a humanist approach, but I know we live in an adversarial system in the west so there will be Feminism and MRM in opposition to each other; what is achieved in the middle ground will be progress for all. When we can define ourselves by what we believe in, rather than who our enemies are, then Humanism will be a more viable option.
Thanks Danny,
Here’s the thing. I am fine with people talking about any side of any issue as long as they come to the table with good intentions and follow the rules of civil discourse. But I was personally called names during the comments on this article — it escalated quite quickly into more than attacks on feminism but attacks on me personally, along with GMP, and I won’t allow that.
And that’s the thing. We do listen here. And not only do we listen, we want to help solve the problems. We want to help create the change you guys want to see in the world. If the people on this thread don’t want that, then I’m as confused as they are.
“But talking about the flaws of feminism is not our goal. Talking about men is.”
Understood. I’ll try to keep that in mind from now on.
Lisa, I appreciate you want to stay on message regarding men. I think this article crossed a line; it presented Feminism’s benefits to men, thus it is an article about men so it passed muster. Yet because the article is about Feminism, and GMP won’t permit discussion of some of the failings of Feminism, the core logic of the article becomes unassailable in comments. Yet the article concerns the relationship between men and Feminism, it is the spine upon which the ribs of the five points are fixed.
In this case I believe GMP’s protection of Feminism creates an unimpeachable article but not because of any inherent virtue of the arguments put forth in the body of the article, simply because of moderation policy. Is this what is good for men?
Hi Transhuman,
I do understand what you are saying, and if I had to do it over again I might have thought about the article differently. But part of my dilemma is this. Most people out in the mainstream see feminism as a system of beliefs that where men and women are treated as equals. Men don’t go out and “sign up” for feminism. They don’t become card-carrying, registered feminist. They just believe that men and women should be treated equally, and the tell others that they should. That’s the feminism I know, and honestly, until I met the people who frequent this website, that was the only feminism I know.
And yes, that is good for men. And by telling men “feminism harms men” — those men — the ones who think feminism = equality can miss out on some of the benefits of being more open-minded about gender, by talking through the harm of stereotypes of both men and women, and by having women as equals. That is what we stand. We believe those things are good for men, and that is what most people call feminism, and we don’t want people even sharply criticized for believing in those things too.
I do understand that the feminism that you are talking about in your critiques is a different kind of feminism. You are talking about the laws that are passed because of lobbying of feminists, and those you think are harmful to men.
I am going to stop now, and I think you worded the question differently in another comment, so I will reply again there.
Lisa
What about those feminists I spoke of in my article about bullying?
You know, the ones who called me a priveledged white male, minimised what happened to me since I’m an anomaly compared to what happens to girls and women, nullified my story due to their opinion that since I’m a part of a group that is at the top then my problems don’t matter?
I see feminisms benefits. I see the egalitarian side, yes. But I can’t forget how those feminists treated me as well. Because it’s real pain. Real invalidation that I didn’t need. That’s what I see as well.
Two sides.
And because we can’t talk about the flaws of feminism in an article that only espouses the benefits, I’m sorry but it just hurts because then I’d have to sweep that pain under the rug. Then it festers and makes me feel like I’m unwanted, no one understands. Which isn’t true, yes, but when you feel like your story is the only one out there, it’s very isolating. Twice so when the dominant narrative that men and boys can’t be hurt by girls and women is omnipresent.
This post probably doesn’t make sense, but you see the general idea don’t you?
Please don’t put this under moderation or delete it. I beg of you.
But, Lisa, an article such as this one that extols the virtues of feminism in the opinion of some does just that – makes the conversation ABOUT feminism, not about men. By contrast, the article could have argued that the five points were good things, not mentioning/crediting feminism. Then the discussion would have been a debate about how men are or are not helped by those five points. See the difference?
I do see the difference Eric. And I actually think we need to do two things (and are working on both).
1) We need to talk about what the points of this article would look like if they were part of an eqalitarian movement. So if we are going to generalize, it should be: “here’s what an ideal world should look like”, instead of how it was taken: “here’s proof of what has been done.”
2) Write an article which addresses some of the specific things that feminism has done.
There are two additional points I want to make, however. The first is that the reason we wrote the article in the first place was because the community at The Good Men Project kept asking for it. “What has feminism ever done for men?” has been a recurring theme over and over in the comment section, wouldn’t you agree?
Now, you can argue that the dots can’t be connected — that the specific things that feminism has done over the years has not led to results Justin has talked about. But it has been from our experience — men, women, feminists, non-feminsts — that is has. One thing that is important to understand is that the particular group of commenters we have here are coming to the table looking to pick a fight with feminism. They are. Which makes it almost impossible to have a conversation, because the person who speaks first is not listened to — not by the next 300 people that join in.
What I want most to happen here is for people to talk about the change they want to see and work towards that change. There are people who have done that here and I love them for it. Some are MRA’s. Some have been really angry commenters in the past. Some have been people who have called me names — a public attack on me as a person. None of that matters. What matters is that if you come here with an open mind, we can help you change the world. We can help you become, not the person that is angry over the effects of the world, but is joyful because they are the cause. I am generalizing here. I am not talking about “you” personally Eric. You are a valued commenter and I appreciate your insights. But this I truly believe — we have created a community that can help men in ways they can’t even imagine. And it’s those who have stepped up, told their own stories, worked to create the change they want to see, were considerate of the beliefs of others — that have gotten the most benefit.
First, I appreciate what you are doing here and how hard you work to make it happen.
“1) We need to talk about what the points of this article would look like if they were part of an eqalitarian movement. So if we are going to generalize, it should be: “here’s what an ideal world should look like”, instead of how it was taken: “here’s proof of what has been done.”
I get what you are saying but feminism must be removed from such discussions in order for that to happen, since many of your readers are convinced that many of the movement’s historical actions and philosophies are not egalitarian? The basis of this article does not permit that.
“Write an article which addresses some of the specific things that feminism has done.”
Then, the discussion again becomes ABOUT feminism not men. That goes against what you said you wanted to accomplish, as I see it. Unless I am not understanding you here. . .
Or if you are going to do that, you MUST (IMO) also do the exact same thing (at the same time) for the men’s rights movement. You must remain neutral IMO.
“There are two additional points I want to make, however. The first is that the reason we wrote the article in the first place was because the community at The Good Men Project kept asking for it. “What has feminism ever done for men?” has been a recurring theme over and over in the comment section, wouldn’t you agree?”
Yes, but you can’t have it both ways, Lisa. You can’t post that article that generalizes feminism’s virtues/benefits and then want the comments to be ABOUT feminism’s effect on men (pro or con) – when the article itself is about feminism. Those things can’t occupy the same place at the same time. Follow me?
“Now, you can argue that the dots can’t be connected — that the specific things that feminism has done over the years has not led to results Justin has talked about. But it has been from our experience — men, women, feminists, non-feminsts — that is has.”
Lisa, that’s an untrue generalization. That’s against the rules. (smile)
Lots of non-feminist men here have stated the exact opposite. And, for a fact, many women also disagree. Mrs. Eric M. is just one of many women who I personally know don’t see it that way. So, why should those who feel one way be given a platform to freely express their views but those who see things differently / have had a different experience be stifled? I really think you should reconsider.
“One thing that is important to understand is that the particular group of commenters we have here are coming to the table looking to pick a fight with feminism.”
It’s a response to the feeling that feminism has picked a fight with men, and many here have cited specific examples of that. Sorry, but if anyone feels they have been harmed by someone/thing, and then someone extols that person/things virtues, 100% of the time, the perceived harmed person is going to disagree. 100% of the time. No getting around that.
“What I want most to happen here is for people to talk about the change they want to see and work towards that change.”
Then, it really can’t be based on the “wonderful things feminism has done for men”, such as this article. Let it be about issues, not a controversial, often unpopular movement. That distracts from the main thing we are here to talk about.
Keep up the good work, Lisa. It’s clear you are putting your heart and soul into it. Thanks.
Well said Eric.
“The first is that the reason we wrote the article in the first place was because the community at The Good Men Project kept asking for it. “What has feminism ever done for men?” has been a recurring theme over and over in the comment section, wouldn’t you agree?”
It has been a recurring theme here, but I do not feel this article answers that question. This article is telling us to support feminism because feminism has done a number of things, but not once amongst those examples was any evidence provided to support the assertion those are done by feminism. They are presumptions. Nor does it actually examine HOW those presumptions have actually helped men, or if they have even been applied to men. This article is a list of the goals, for women, pursued by the moderate wing of feminism, written in gender neutral tones and assumed to apply to men as well.
“Now, you can argue that the dots can’t be connected — that the specific things that feminism has done over the years has not led to results Justin has talked about. ”
This I did, and to GMP’s credit, it didn’t get modded out. Thank you. (just wanted to point this out in your support due to the flak you’re getting for moderating. )
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/five-ways-feminism-helps-men/comment-page-2/#comment-157659
@Lisa
“But talking about the flaws of feminism is not our goal.
Talking about men is.”
This is a curiously inconsistent policy for a blog site that has a whole section dedicated to “men & feminism”.
An examination of men is necessarily an examination of gender. I don’t think you can seriously explore the status of men in the 21st century without fostering discussion on a movement that has held an intellectual and political monopoly on the question in the western world for decades.
(sorry got distracted, continuing…)
I don’t think anyone seriously disputes that men have been affected by feminism, nor can many dispute that men have been largely a means of ancillary consideration for the movement and not an end in their own right. Now, whether feminism has been on the whole, good or bad for the well-being of men is up for debate and worth exploring. It informs the direction of the men’s movement -are we as a gender able to build on feminism to meet our social objectives, or must we build an alternative movement “in a different voice”?
I would think the GMP would be interested in shaping that direction.
“It informs the direction of the men’s movement -are we as a gender able to build on feminism to meet our social objectives, or must we build an alternative movement “in a different voice”?”
Actually, that would be great to explore, big picture. Would you volunteer to write to post, at least pose some of the questions so people can answer just that?
And…er, Random_Stranger, I don’t believe we’ve met.
I am also very interested in this question, and hope you will consider writing at greater length on the subject, Random_Stranger.
Men can build on the egalitarian feminism, but I don’t think taking tips from gynocentric feminism would help at all. Egal-feminists seem quite willing to work with men however the latter seem too busy with their own stuff and can’t really afford to share their resources (not saying that is right or wrong). I personally don’t see much value in having too much gendered resources especially on abuse, etc as working together would accomplish more.
ht tp://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/story/2012/05/04/men-suffer-in-domestic-abuse/
This link is what happens when we have too much of our domestic violence information gendered and only showing one gender as victim, one as a perp I believe. I’ve seen some females who feel it’s perfectly fine to hit, bite, slap, punch, kick guys in the nuts even and they can justify it by saying “he made me mad”. I’ve seen this happen IN PUBLIC with no one really batting n eye, it happened quite a lot in school but when a guy does the same to a girl people lost their cool and went off about it.
What’s the point in separating the genders? violence, bad stuff, etc happens to both genders and I think we all need to work together to change our society for the better. Gender roles themselves need both genders working together to change the narrative and gynocentric feminism and androcentric masculism I feel only divides us instead of uniting us.
The reason I love this site so much is we have both men AND women communicating TOGETHER, both sides of the story get told and we all learn from it. Being around one gender only can easily lead to ignorance of the struggle the other gender faces, the fact I’ve seen so many feminists and women comment here and other places with surprise and shock to just how bad men get it is proof to me of that.
I have never been encouraged by feminists to speak with my own voice, either as a man or as a sexual abuse survivor. I have had more feminists try to silence my voice by blaming me for my own abuse (on which feminists and I coincidentally agree), accusing me of lying about past and my post-abuse treatment, accusing me of being an abuser, accusing me of silencing women and of sexism against women, and using sexist terms like “mansplaining” whenever I talk or write about an issue.
As for the other four items on the list, none of them are unique to feminism.
On a broader level, if you have write a list explaining to men all the good things feminism does for them, then feminism probably does not do those things because it did they would be self-apparent.
However, I do get the point of the list. It is intended to counter the complaint that feminism is anti-male, but it does not work because it only presents one perspective. It is no more proof that feminism is pro-male than a conservative writing a list about all the good things Christianity does for gay people proves that Christianity is pro-gay.
Different people have different experiences, and I think it would better serve us to acknowledge the good and the bad experiences instead of telling those who had bad experiences that they are wrong.
This article is making some general statements about how a social/political movement has done some positive things. General statements, in themselves aren’t necessarily problematic. This article, for example, isn’t saying that these are the only ways feminism has helped men, or that feminism hasn’t potentially also harmed men in other ways. As much as feminism isn’t a monolith, there are some general statements that can be made about feminism as a social ideology, and the ones Justin listed are part of that. It’s speaking in general terms, but it’s not a generalization
A generalization, on the other hand, takes a specific concept that is perhaps accurate for a smaller group (in our case group of people) and then applies it to a large group (in our case a group of people) without the data to back it up. So if Justin, at the end, were to say that all feminists believed what he was saying, and that all feminists had helped to achieve the things he lists, then that would be a generalization. If Justin, in the article, were to have said that no feminist ideologies have harmed men, that would also be a generalization. But he didn’t say either of those things.
Also, negative generalizations are often much more harmful than positive ones. I know, theoretically, they should both be treated the same…but that’s just not how it works. If I hear an inaccurate generalization about a group I’m part of, I’m less likely to take issue than if I hear a negative one. And the reason for this is to do with social judgement. If someone says that they think all women are beautiful, then I don’t hear that and feel judged or condemned. If I hear the statement that all women are ugly, then I do feel judged and condemned. Both are generalizations, but the negative one has a much bigger impact. So there’s that, too.
It’s absolutely a generalization, an inaccurate one at that. It claims feminism has helped “men.”
I’m a man; so, that must include me, and every other male – since he didn’t say some men, and claim that it was referring to men in general. So, yes, it is a generalization – an inaccurate and negative one.
Justin implied in a previous comment that his article was a response to some of the criticism feminism receives in the comments here.
I suppose my problem with the list (and lists in general) is that it oversimplifies a complex issue. Every ideology affects people in different ways, and to side-steps the ways an ideology negatively affects a group does everyone a disservice. The only way we can honestly understand how anything impacts society is by looking at all the ways it affects people’s lives, not just the ways that favor our opinions.
Likewise, while I understand that few people will object to positive generalizations compared to negative ones, the problem in this situation is that the objection only comes when someone critiques feminism or mentions a negative experience. It is fine for me to say feminism helps men and apply that to all variants of the ideology, but if I say feminism hurts men, I must pick with variant I mean. In other words, feminism can be a monolith… as long as you give positive commentary.
That is at best unhelpful and at worst dismissive to those who have been hurt by the ideology. Yet the bigger problem is that none of this addresses the issues at play. Instead of looking specifically at how these concepts affect men’s lives, we play around with defending or defeating an ideology. We miss the point, and end up having the same discussion/argument/debate over and over again.
Well first, this isn’t a thesis, it’s a short article. I mean really you could teach entire seminars and write entire books about the myriad of ways feminism has affected men throughout the decades. So yes, it is a simplification of a very complex issue, but I read it as a response to some very specific comments. It’s not meant to be comprehensive, but rather a jumping off point. I read the first line to mean something like – Feminism isn’t just what you think, it’s done these good things for men. Not that this list was exhaustive, and not that the negative affects are invalid, but rather a response to people who bring up the negative aspects.
As to whether it’s treating feminism as a monolith…perhaps it is a bit, and perhaps when making positive general statements it’s easier to get away with being a bit monolithic with the ideology you’re talking about. But again, I saw it as a direct response to comments that treat feminism as a monolith. A lot of people say ‘feminism hasn’t helped men,’ which is being monolithic. And so his response was, ‘actually yes it has.’
But also, I don’t think it’s being completely monolithic…in that it isn’t rejecting the variants. There are some general ideas that feminist theory espouses, and that’s what he’s talking about. And I’d like to point out that this isn’t only true of positive statements. A general, negative critique of feminism (up until extremely recently) could point out how white-washed and middle class the whole ideology was. It’s valid, yet it’s negative. It’s not treating feminism as a monolith, so much as identifying that there are certain traits that are similar across most forms of feminism.
Heather, as I said before, I understood the intent. I just think that it is the wrong response to the comments Justin wrote about. To use my Christian/gay analogy again, I think it is wrong to respond to gay people’s criticism of Christian ideology by saying what good things Christianity does for gay people. That response side-steps the complaints instead of addressing them. To get back on point, saying “Feminism isn’t just what you think” implies that the people making complaints do not understand feminism or are mistaken in their understanding. Yet could not the same be true of those defending feminism? Could they not also misunderstand feminism and its impact on men, women, and society?
As for treating an ideology as monolithic compared to recognizing the general ideas accepted by most variants, I think that is just playing semantics. If most variants accept the same idea, then it is fair to say said ideology in general accepts that idea. The issue is really whether one agrees that most variants accept that idea.
Perhaps the problem is that people tend to treat their experiences as universal and also that people tend to view things as black and white. One person’s experience cannot represent everyone’s experience, and reality tends to be shades of gray. We want it simple, and it cannot be that way.
Well said, sir!
To use your Christian/gay ideology, though…Christianity itself, as an ideology doesn’t actually hurt gay people. There are, actually, plenty of gay Christians. It’s only some denominations that hurt gay people…and really Christians get painted (unfairly) with an anti-gay brush much of the time.
As for whether the people who defend and identify as feminists are just misunderstanding…well here’s the thing, that goes back to something Justin said about how the people who identify with a certain identity are the ones who define it. Yes, as I’ve mentioned, there also needs to be recognition of the times that group has screwed up…but we’re still the ones who get to define that group.
It’s just like men here saying that they are the ones who get to define what it means to be a man, and not women.
” I read the first line to mean something like – Feminism isn’t just what you think, it’s done these good things for men”
Not for nothin, that’s like telling the Marlboro man what good cigarettes did for him. You’re not going to convince anyone except yourself lol
“Also, negative generalizations are often much more harmful than positive ones. I know, theoretically, they should both be treated the same…but that’s just not how it works. ”
Promoting double standards that happen to support your ideology, I thought you were better then that. We’ve had discussions about generalizations, about the use of and need for quantifying with “all” or “most”, where I said when someone says feminist are mate haters, it is not “ALL” feminist, but feminists (with room for exeptions). You argued this was unacceptable because it wasn’t clear enough. I’m disappointed your changing your tune now that the discussion suits your goals, though I’m also somwhat glad, because I won’t allow any further conversations with you to be derailed by that discussion again.
” If I hear an inaccurate generalization about a group I’m part of, I’m less likely to take issue than if I hear a negative one.”
Does that apply to groups you AREN’T part of? Is it not possible the double standard stems from same group preference and self interest rather than positive or negative? I know for a fact many other feminists feel the same way you do when talking about feminism, but once the conversation switches to MRA’s, suddenly the positive generalizations are far less acceptable than the negative one. So no, it isn’t about social judgement and positive vs negative, it is about self interest. It is easier to accept positive generalizations about yourself than negative ones.
“This article, for example, isn’t saying that these are the only ways feminism has helped men, or that feminism hasn’t potentially also harmed men in other ways”
Why did you use the word “potentially” to qualify the harm that feminism has caused men (especially considering all of the men in here posting comments that it HAS harmed us) but you don’t use it to qualify the ways it has “helped” us (especially considering all of the men in here posting comments saying that it HASN’T helped us)?
Do you get to decide how things affect men? Or do we?
@ HeatherN
“If I hear an inaccurate generalization about a group I’m part of, I’m less likely to take issue than if I hear a negative one.”
I was wondering when you’d join the discussion. It’s more fun and often enlightening when you participate. What if the characterization was all white women are exceptionally smart? It may be complimentary to the group named, but simultaneously denigrates the other groups. When he says feminism taught is this. He immediately negates any other influences that may have caused a person to have arrived at that decision. Many individuals on this thread seem to indicate that they have learned to break the gender role despite feminism.
Well first, thanks.
And secondly, I still maintain that this article has general statements, not generalizations. But as to the rest…I think it’s all about the subtleties of the author’s meaning. That’s why I usually try to ask a clarifying question before going on the offensive. When I read the statement he makes about ‘feminism taught,’ for example, I don’t think he’s saying feminism is the ONLY ideology that teaches these things. He may be saying that these ideas originated with feminism…or that feminism has made them more popular. But I don’t read what he’s saying as meaning that feminism is the only place to find these things…but rather that feminism is the ideology that can take credit for either starting or popularizing these things. But yeah, since it’s not specifically stated, this is a case where I’d say just ask. Someone asking – hey do you actually mean that no other ideology BUT feminism teaches these things? – is much more likely to get a helpful and explanatory response than accusing the author.
Your example of ‘white women’ is also very different…because, well yeah it’s a generalization (whereas the article is just general statements). But also, and perhaps even more importantly, making a general statement (or generalized statement) about a group of people based on a purely ascribed social identity (and not a voluntarily joined ideology) is problematic. I think then it’s more prone to be taken to mean that people outside of that social identity don’t have the attribute you just gave to that group. So, for example, something like – white women are smart – is a positive generalization, but to a social identity. No one can voluntarily become white, and even changing gender is difficult to get society to accept. So you are effectively saying that people who were born into a certain social group have these positive traits – and then it’s quite easy to infer the inverse, that people not born into these groups don’t have these positive traits and there’s nothing they can do about it. (Because the group isn’t voluntarily joined, it’s socially ascribed).
Meanwhile, to say that…Christians are nice…is a positive statement. But I don’t think it has quite the same implication that non-Christians are not nice. In part because, theoretically, anyone can join. And so there’s an element that maybe nice people happen to join Christianity, as opposed to Christianity making them nice. Or that both is possible. (Whereas if it’s a category you’re born into, then it’s very much implied that being in that category is what ascribes those traits).
Goodness I hope that makes sense.
@ HeatherN
“but rather that feminism is the ideology that can take credit for either starting or popularizing these things”
I think the civil rights struggle actually started and popularized the idea that people don’t need to follow society’s proscribed role for them. Just like suffrage for male slaves made people face the question why could a poor, black man vote, but not a rich, white woman set the stage for women’s suffrage.
I was talking about all the different bits on the list. And, as I said…”popularise” it too. Feminism took the idea of not adhering to prescribed social norms and they were the first to apply that to gender. But that’s really besides the point anyway.
In addition to what I said, I’d also like to add that there is a big difference between making a general statement (good or bad) about feminism and making a generalisation (god or bad) about feminists. Discussing an ideology in general terms is much less priblematic than generalising about the people who adhere to that ideology. And again, it comes down to that sense of judgement and personal attacks.
Feminists believe and support feminism; separating them is nonsensical. You are trying to divert attention from the errors in this article of inaccurate generalisations by falling back on a tactic of claiming personal attacks. No-one has been threatened with harm, only their ideas and beliefs have been called into question. Your appeal to protection is,sadly, a hallmark of feminists when their debating strategies fail. When people believe something and someone disagrees with them, that is not a personal attack – its called debate.
What is being criticised is Feminism and people who believe in the inaccuracies of the article. Feminists and Feminism are synonymous…you cannot have one without the other.
In addition to what I said, I’d also like to add that there is a big difference between making a general statement (good or bad) about feminism and making a generalisation (god or bad) about feminists. Discussing an ideology in general terms is much less priblematic than generalising about the people who adhere to that ideology. And again, it comes down to that sense of judgement and personal attacks.
But things get hairy at that point because it seems the actions and words of the people that make up feminism (aka feminists) are being pushed aside at select times. Feminists make up feminism so how can you on one hand say that making a general statement about a movement is separate from making a general statement about its members?
Let’s take white supremacists. Personally I don’t see much difference when people talk about white supremacists versus the white supremacist movement. We talk about the dangerous ideas of the movement and the dangerous actions and ideas of the members of the movement.
What I’m trying to say is that since the members make the movement how can we say that there is such a big difference between talking about the members and movement itself?
And I think specific bit here is a clue:
Discussing an ideology in general terms is much less priblematic than generalising about the people who adhere to that ideology.
This may be why people like to try to narrow down criticisms of their movement as closely as possible in order to say “its just those people that adhere to that ideology” rather than facing the possibility that the movement itself has a bad element in it. That’s how the “feminists are not a monolith” gets repeated so much when even the most well cited criticism is pointed out.
And again what bugs me is that so many feminists will perform this type of surgery and then refuse to extend the slightest consideration to other groups of people. On one hand its unfair to be critical of all of feminism (the movement) because the folks at Shakesville (some of the people of that movement) are hypocrites when it comes to moderation but on the other we are supposed to believe that the entire MRM (the movement) is bad news because some MRAs (some of the people of that movement) identified with Sodini? Then at the same time its fair to say that feminism is all about equality despite the actions and words of some of its members and it unfair to say that the MRM is all about equality despite the actions and words of some of its members?
I’m gonna have to pull out an example I haven’t used in a while.
When it comes to the gender discourse it seems that trying to get a bead on feminism and its members is like playing a shell where the person moving the shells is allowed to move the ball even after the shells have stopped moving and the player has picked one.
I don’t see the treatment of the men’s rights movement on the GMP that you’re suggesting is the case, Danny. I do see a lot of feminism-bashing in the comments for this piece, however.
Your point about the difference between white supremacists is an interesting one. I have always been so repulsed by them that I never looked at their theory. Maybe it would be interesting. But what is more interesting to me, and relevant to our lives, is the effect of the theory on how many people act, particularly white racists who don’t actively ally with such groups and wouldn’t be able to quote their theories, but rely on them in some way to provide backing for their beliefs.
I don’t see the treatment of the men’s rights movement on the GMP that you’re suggesting is the case, Danny. I do see a lot of feminism-bashing in the comments for this piece, however.
In this piece, certainly not. However there are past posts here by Marcotte (and Futrelle as well I think) that do just that.
But what is more interesting to me, and relevant to our lives, is the effect of the theory on how many people act, particularly white racists who don’t actively ally with such groups and wouldn’t be able to quote their theories, but rely on them in some way to provide backing for their beliefs.
The effects of white supremacist theory on white racists that don’t identify as white supremacist but reference white supremacist theory as back up for their own beliefs? I think that will be a hard go because I think what would happen is that as soon as that white racist mentioned white supremacist theory people would trip over themselves to call that person a white supremacist.
I’ve seen that happen to people that didn’t ID as MRA get attacked as MRA and people that don’t ID as feminists get attacked as feminists (in fact I’ve done that latter one to others and have had the former done to me).
I suppose the big question is going to be would people be willing to accept that a white racist is not a white supremacist because said white racist said so? If the answer to that is no and people jump to declare that said white racist is in fact a white supremacist then your thought become moot. If they are declared a white supremacist then there would be no room to differentiate the two and test your inquiry.
Justin, before you call it feminism-bashing, look into the many issues raised in the comments. Bashing implies the real experiences of men who have suffered the ill-effects of feminism are being untruthful. If GMP is really a place for men to share their experiences then, when they do, shouldn’t we all listen and consider what they have to say? Even if it challenges our own view of the world?
Feminism has done some fine things for women; its benefit and applicability to men is in grave doubt. There is evidence in many legislatures, if you look into it.
@ Justin
“I do see a lot of feminism-bashing in the comments for this piece,”
I took issue with this line also because it implies an unfair criticism; however, I’ve seen many people, like myself, provide very specific repudiations of your thesis.
I see the odd bit of feminism-bashing, but mostly I just see feminism-critics and from what they are saying I say it’s 100% warranted. You generalize about the positives feminism has done (done by feminists regardless of type) yet you take offense to negative generalizations of what feminism has done for men (done by feminists regardless of type). So which is it? Feminism is a monolith when it’s for good, or do you mean Some parts of feminism (by some feminists) have benefitted men?
It’s funny that quite a few feminists I see have NO trouble negatively generalizing about the MRM yet cry foul when the same is afforded to feminism (not saying you are Justin, just a common observation I’ve seen of others). Hell even the SPLC labelled the MRM as a hate movement, I’ve seen feminists repeat this as gospel and as “proof” the mrm is misogynist yet seen the same feminists crack a huge stink over “trolls” who point out the negative groups within feminism, and really chuck a mickey over those who negatively generalize against feminism. By the standards of the SPLC that I’ve seen feminism IS a hatemovement (taking a few examples from comments and web posts of misogyny/misandry and treating it as representative of the entire movement).
Is it any wonder why people are getting annoyed at these double standards? If you notice in the comments I see quite a few actually would agree with you IF you mean a few feminists/some feminism (not sure exactly how many so it’s a number under 100%) have benefitted men. Would the GMP allow an article 5 ways feminism has harmed men? I vote that since this article was put through, I definitely agree the opposite should be allowed just to see the support of generalization in any form. I’ll actually think less of the site if it isn’t allowed just from the hypocrisy, so the cat is out of the bag on this one so who here can write an article listing 5 ways feminism has harmed men. I sure am curious to read it. Someone/some others can also write a 5 ways the MRM has helped/harm women if they want, I’ll read them too.
I wrote an article about negative depictions of men in media that was rejected.
To my mind tgmp is steering away from talking about the many ways political and cultural forces harm all men.
“his article, for example, isn’t saying that these are the only ways feminism has helped men, or that feminism hasn’t potentially also harmed men in other ways”
You are missing the point and simply abusing the notion of ‘generalizations”. Your comment about makes it clear that you consider the Judges opinions to in fact be axiomatic. The passionate objections to the article are not that a) she didn’t also cover the ways feminism hurt men or b) that she left out some ways that feminism has helped men. It is that a) we reject the very points she made as being untrue e.g having ‘equal partners’ because of it and b) that feminism has helped men at all.
I am all for ‘feminism’ if you mean it in it’s purest sense; I have three sisters and was brought up to think of and treat women as human beings and equals. The real issue is that feminism did and will continue to stall as a movement and fail both men and women until it’s next logical step; embrace men’s rights and mens’ issues. Articles like the one you posted make it clear that those rights and issues are still unrecognized.
Alrighty well I’ve pretty much taken myself out of this conversation because I feel like I’ve said what I came to say and it’s not really getting anywhere.
I do want to point out that Justin wrote this article and he is, actually, a man. So there’s that.
As to feminists embracing men’s rights…it’s happening. Where I first heard about men’s rights was in a gender & sexuality studies class, actually. And also, pointing out the ways feminism has helped men doesn’t necessarily imply that men can’t also form their own groups to advocate for men’s rights. It’s not either/or. This article is saying feminism has helped men in these ways; not that only feminism can help men.
Anyway, I’m out.
The claim in the article that feminism has helped men and its supporting argument are completely hollow.
1) Gives us equal partners—-Absolutely false. Women generally go for superior men for partnering, and after that fails may opt for equals, but never the inferior men. So equal partnership among genders is not found in natures.
2) Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles—- The changes in the gender roles have been brought in by the economic and technological changes rather than any ideology like feminism. Any ideology cannot work without favorable economic conditions.
3) Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions— What is that supposed to mean???? Role conflicts are always present in every social system and cannot be totally avoided.
4) Encourages us to speak in our own voices—- A meaningless hyperbole. In whose voice men were speaking before feminism gained steam.
5) Makes us all more free— Another super hyperbole. A person is either free or not. There is nothing like more or less free.
I dispute feminism’s definition as a movement for women’s equality. So therefore I have to dispute this article. Feminism is about securing women’s release from their traditional obligations while maintaining their traditional benefits. And the way you maintain women’s traditional benefits is ensuring that men maintain THEIR traditional obligations. So any benefit that men get from feminism is incidental, not intentional.
1. You are not equal partners if you are still expected to earn more money, pay for the majority of items and provide physical security. You also are viewed by the court system as inferior in terms of parental rights.
2-3-4-5. To me these are all really one point. While men can and are dropping out of their traditional gender role, it is largely viewed as unacceptable and weak, by both women and the society at large.
1: Incorrect. ” it means that our partners in these relationships have equal power.” What it actually means is women have AT LEAST as much power as men. What you are doing is going over the “what men have” checklist and seeing women have all those things, and saying “look, they are the same”. What you aren’t doing is completeing the comparison and checking if men have all the things women have, and that’s where feminism failed. The single sided gyno centrism of gender feminists have only succeeded in reversing the dynamic.
2:Gender feminism may have promoted these idea’s, may have even expidited their acceptance (though that is not only debatable, it is even possible to argue it has set women back on this course. IE: see arguments against affirmative action), but the idea’s themselves are not feminist.
Moreover, they are not applicable to men, as gender feminist opposition to shared parenting, a men’s ministry, a men’s centre in colleges (http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/27/a-place-just-for-men/) any kind of acknowledgement as victims of DV or sexual abuse, and a constant chipping away at basic human rights and due process in cases involving these area’s men are denied victimhood in, will all attest as examples. In other words, as much as feminism has promoted the right for women to expand from their traditional roles, gender feminists are equally as effective at promoting the enforcement of male gender roles, in fact, in modern day, they are actually moreso. The fact we still have a single gender draft and registration, plus the continued ideal of women and children first that is expected of men, demonstrate “male as protector” as a role is still very much enforced. Family courts, custody, child support, debtors prison and all those related things, combined with all the social benefits women are far more likely to benefit from (such as wellwoman visits via obamacare, or breast cancer treatment through medicade being denied to a man with breast cancer, BECAUSE HE WAS A MAN being an official, on the books response), show very clearly women are to be provided for, men have to pay, IE, the male as provider role. The utter lack of women within the workplace death statistics, combined with the utter lack of calls to have affirmative action within those dangerous fields is evident men as disposable is also a role that is strictly enforced on men.
3: not sure how feminism is responsable for this. Psychiatry/Psycology as fields were exploring this long before the feminist movement.
4: Unless that voice is a man’s and doesn’t spout the feminist rhetoric. I think Tom, founder of this site can attest to that. SPLC designating all of men’s rights (while accepting funding from radFemHub, an ACTUAL hate group against men), any man or women speaking on behalf of men’s rights being called misogynist, bitter, desperate, lonely or any number of other shaming tactics, all prove this assertion to be utterly false. I again point to the link provided above, where a male space is being objected too. Two commenter’s chime in saying a men’s centre would be acceptable “IF” it adhere’s to and promotes gender feminist dogma (instead of, you know, HELPING MEN).
5: I don’t feel free. I want to be married and have a family, but I don’t feel free to do so until I can be assured that divorce will not rob me of everything. Ask any man paying alimony to an ex wife who refuses to get a job if he feels free. Ask a man who hasn’t gotten to see his children for 5 years because his ex doesn’t feel like giving him his visitation and the courts refuse to enforce it, how “free” he feels. As the guy who just got expelled from school on the exceedingly low standard of evidence after an accusation of rape, despite the fact his accuser is currently fleeing from the law for filing a false report in the EXACT SAME CASE, how much freedom he has? Keep in mind, gender feminists actually oppose fixing any of these issues, and are actually responsable for the last one (the last two in the case of Australia)
Just to clarify, you can’t make a list of things you feel women have benefited from feminism and assume it applies to men. It doesn’t work that way. Men and women have different problems, and gender feminisms refusal to acknowledge that means it is unable to help men.
To everyone who is saying that feminism actually wants to reinforce old gender norms, I say this: Join me in the third wave and post-third wave. The water’s fine.
Seriously, though, yes a lot of feminism through the second wave failed to fully grasp the limitations of traditional gender norms for both men and women. A lot of the older policies and political movements reflect this. It is changing. Who do you all think is fighting for women to be able to occupy combat roles in the military, for example? It’s feminists. Feminists who want women to be able to take up the responsibilities that come along with being full members of society.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, and I’m not saying that there are still valid criticisms of feminism (in all it’s variations). What I am saying is that feminist ideology today isn’t about reaffirming old gender norms; it’s about breaking them.
I’m pretty sure the third wave and post-third wave have some problems of their own Heather.
Slutwalks and women’s studies groups posting profiles of men on their campus as potential rapists to “raise awareness” come from the third wave and post.
Moreover, it’s hard to embrace one less-flawed form of Feminism when her big sister Second-Wave is instituting primary aggressor laws, refusing to fix VAWA, promoting discrimination in DV assistance as well as rape counseling, and generally advocating for their own interests (read: rich, White, hetero) no matter who suffers — men, people of color, children, the poor, immigrants, religious minorities.
I’ve written about Feminism plenty of times, but let’s not pretend the latter forms are better or that promoting them will somehow circumvent the very real structural power wielded by the second-wave, and which they are unwilling to concede under the pretext of their personal notions of gender equality.
Zek, I said that there are valid criticisms of all forms of feminism. I specifically said it wasn’t perfect. My point is that it’s changing specifically with regards to adhering to traditional gender norms.
Okay, I agree it is changing. That’s a good thing.
But that still doesn’t change anything for us in the here and now. I’m not going to stop naming, challenging, and speaking out against serious problems caused by Feminism/Feminists, nor the questionable issues undertaken by various Feminist groups and individuals, just because change is coming.
I’m sorry, but I don’t have the patience to wait for Feminism to change. Many men don’t even have the luxury of waiting for change. And we cannot assume that it’ll change for the better. I need to be proactive, just like the rest of my brothers in the MRM.
I didn’t say sit around and wait. And I didn’t say stop critiquing it. I’m saying, when you critique it, make sure those critiques are accurate. And it’s inaccurate to say that feminism is about reinforcing old gender norms.
I’m not saying you did. Not at all.
I just think your attitude is not going to be productive for people like me, and the rest of the commenters here, in helping to fuel further change in the realm of gender equality. It’s a function of your own privilege to be less insistent than we are being, and to question the commenters here as to the accuracy of their critiques.
Moreover, you may believe that Feminism isn’t about reinforcing old gender norms. But for many men, that’s the net effect. Men are still required to be disposable, still required to be success objects, still required to be emotionless, still required to be what society and women (specifically Feminism/Feminists) want us to be in order to live any kind of life.
The third-wave and post-waves haven’t changed the happenstance, nor the status-quo. Intentions are all well and good, but I don’t see DIY girls fighting against misandry in the courts or against proposed legislation. I don’t see slutwalkers protesting racism — on the contrary I see them reinforcing it.
That could just be a function of my confirmation bias, or limited experience, but then I see that millions of people — and not just men! — recognizing the same problems I do, and I realize that it just ain’t right anymore.
“It’s a function of your own privilege to be less insistent than we are being”
Nail. Head. Thank you.
Zek writes:
That could just be a f”unction of my confirmation bias, or limited experience, but then I see that millions of people — and not just men! — recognizing the same problems I do, and I realize that it just ain’t right anymore.”
Good point. From what I have read on fathers and families press releases nearly half the members and board members are women.
Glenn Sacks stepped down and was replaced by Rita Fuerst Adams as executive director. Does anybody have the membership by gender of NOW for example of dues-paying members?
I sincerely doubt it is anywhere near 50%
“Wasn’t perfect” is a distortion and a gross understatement. It is affirmatively biased against men and pursuing a discriminatory legislative strategy to deprive men of their civil rights in many cases involving alleged crimes against women.
“I say this: Join me in the third wave and post-third wave.”
No thanks, feminism had it’s chances. The men’s movement is stepping up to plate now, and so I say this: Get your house in order and work with us on terms we deem acceptable, or it will get steamrolled.
“Who do you all think is fighting for women to be able to occupy combat roles in the military, for example? It’s feminists.”
Is that fight still going by feminists, or just the individual female soldiers that want to fight? Last I was aware, feminism got the combat pay for women, and got the access to promotions that combat entails, and that was good enough for them. What about registration and the draft? or is taking up the “responsibility” still to be entirely voluntary for women, but not men?
“What I am saying is that feminist ideology today isn’t about reaffirming old gender norms; it’s about breaking them.”
Students and faculty in Acadamia disagree. http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/04/27/a-place-just-for-men/
“Last I was aware, feminism got the combat pay for women, and got the access to promotions that combat entails, and that was good enough for them. What about registration and the draft?”
I’d like to see one area where feminism has ever fought for not only te same advantages that men have but also the same hardships and responsibilities.
Please prove me wrong
Oh for goodness sake. We’ve had discussions about the whole draft issue. The reason women aren’t included in the draft IS NOT because feminist organizations weren’t trying to get women included.
See Nick, Mostly’s piece on it. Early April I believe.
Feel free to provide a link.
As to heather and “oh for goodness sake”,You claimed feminism has been fighting to get women into combat roles. Can you please explain to me what feminists have done toward this end since succeeding at getting women combat pay and promotion opportunity? I merely pointed out the draft as an example, and it seems that’s the ONLY thing in my post you felt the need to, or comfortable(?) taking issue with. In fact, I began by asking if the fight to get women into combat was still going on, to which you didn’t answer, so I’ll presume that means no, it isn’t until I see evidence otherwise.
Submitted on 2012/04/12 at 12:26 pm | In reply to Ginkgo.
Quoting Nick, Mostly,
1)
“We have people making assumptions about NOW’s position on the draft when even the most cursory Google search would reveal their position.
And if you really cared to know, they actually joined with the ACLU in Rostker v Goldberg which attempted to find a gendered draft unconstitutional and, as President Carter proposed, have women included in the draft. They also filed an amicus brief in Miller v Albright supporting the petition that the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) were unconstitutional because they disadvantaged fathers.”
2)
“The Supreme Court has already ruled on selective service. NOW’s side lost. You don’t usually get a second chance before the Supreme Court. They have a position, and they fought for it when there was a fight to be fought. And there is currently no conscription. Whatever was “in the back of their minds” during our disastrous campaigns into the Middle East, conscription was floated in the House of Representatives and no one would touch it. There was no chance of the draft coming back, there was no opportunity to testify, there were no lawsuits to join. Nothing.
And there was no “deep digging” in Google. Here was my search term:
draft site:now.org”
http://goodmenproject.com/the-issues-of-mens-rights/calling-bullsh-on-the-gender-rights-movements/comment-page-2/#comment-141249.
http://goodmenproject.com/the-issues-of-mens-rights/calling-bullsh-on-the-gender-rights-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-140981
http://goodmenproject.com/the-issues-of-mens-rights/calling-bullsh-on-the-gender-rights-movements/comment-page-1/#comment-140957 Quoting Nick, Mostly
“Their official position on the draft (quoted above) is located at:
http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html
To find positions that NOW holds you need to look at the conference resolutions.
http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/index.html
Unfortunately the links for 1998 and earlier are broken (1994 and earlier aren’t even linked) so you’ll have to use Google for specific issues.
That’s what they say; I also look to see what they do. One of the things men (myself included) are passionate about is the blatant discrimination concerning raising children. Consider what NOW and the ACLU wrote in their amicus brief re Miller v Albright:
This case involves the very kind of gender discrimination VMI was designed to eradicate: treating men and women differently based on overbroad, outdated stereotypes—here, the stereotype that women, but not men, have a natural connection to their children. Using that stereotype Congress passed a law automatically granting citizenship to illegitimate children of U.S. citizen mothers, but denying it to children of U.S. citizen fathers, unless the father first proves he is indeed the father and documents his commitment to care for the child. Such a statute should have been held to be a violation of equal protection under VMI given that the government has not and could not advance an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for it.
That’s not just some token nod to men, that’s an attempt by NOW to have the Supreme Court invalidate a law that disadvantages men concerning parenting. I don’t agree with every position NOW takes, but I think it is only fair to give credit where credit is due.”
Thank you Julie and Nick, mostly.
“Using that stereotype Congress passed a law automatically granting citizenship to illegitimate children of U.S. citizen mothers, but denying it to children of U.S. citizen fathers, unless the father first proves he is indeed the father and documents his commitment to care for the child. Such a statute should have been held to be a violation of equal protection under VMI given that the government has not and could not advance an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for it.
That’s not just some token nod to men, that’s an attempt by NOW to have the Supreme Court invalidate a law that disadvantages men concerning parenting. I don’t agree with every position NOW takes, but I think it is only fair to give credit where credit is due.”
Wrong. It was NOW advocating a liberal policy for IMMIGRATION. Is there any history or evidence of NOW fighting as diligently or at all for AMERICAN Men’s rights to their own children, for courts to not award custody to children to mother’s based on ‘outdated stereotypes’ or alimony to women based on the same notions? Do they fight for men’s right to be notified of the conception of their own children or just their obligation to support it? Do they fight for Roe V Wade to provide the same protection for men as it does for women, i.e. to not be forced into indentured servitude?
It is Andrea Dworkin who wanted men’s penis’s classified as weapons which shows you the very mindset; certainly if a man’s penis is classified as weapon a woman’s vagina would have to be classified as a WMD?
NOW often seems to advocate for men’s rights when it is in fact nothing of the sort; when they fought for the domestic violence laws to be rewritten to be gender-neutral they did not do so to protect the (many) men who are victims of physical, emotional and mental abuse at the hands of women. They did so to protect lesbian couples; this is not a ‘guess’ it was in their own explained rationale for the change in the law.
It’s great that NOW took that stance. It’s great that you can post your ideas.
However, NOW and other political self-identifying orgs have take an about-face on their support of men since this lawsuit.
I detailed some of the worst talking points, unfortunately I can not post my ideas as I am being moderated to death on this board for no reason I can fathom.
I did not use broad generalizations of feminism or any type of stereotypes or attacks, yet for whatever reason my comments keep getting deleted.
I too have been ‘moderated to death’ John and after making what I’d consider some well considered and written replies to other posts here.
It really is disappointing when people choose to dispute an example and ignore the point. NOW’s position on the draft, that is over 30 years old and established before women were allowed into combat roles, and so were denied combat pay and promotion opportunities, was a position attempting to get these things for women. But the fact is, since women got access to these things (pay and promotion), what has NOW or any feminist organization done to challenge the gender discrimination of the draft and/or registry. Sure, it’s easy to say “supreme court ruled, nothing can be done”, but that’s a cop out. The supreme court rulings CAN be overridden by legislature. The supreme court ruled the draft was NOT unconstitutional (which shows just how sexist the courts are in favor of women), based on the standards of the time, which said only men did combat. What legislature has NOW or any feminist group proposed or supported since they got pay and promotion without responsibility? Karen DeCrow, former NOW president was also in support of equal, shared parenting, but NOWs official position on that is opposition. Pointing to what they said and did 3+ decades past isn’t any kind of proof these days.
Thank you for providing this. I think it’s interesting that they failed in both cases, perhaps this really was just a token nod that they didn’t put much effort into at all. I guess the more telling question is, where have they fought for men and succeeded?
Because half-hearted fighting just so you can say you did something isn’t nearly enough,. In fact, that’s worse than doing nothing.
How do we know it was half hearted? You assume that, and I suspect you want that to be true. What I’m sensing is that there isn’t much anyone can offer to you that would be evidence of positive movement for men. So even when issues are brought up, you decide they aren’t good enough, when we don’t know the reasons for the failing. It would be worth both of us investigating in terms of history.
Take care.
“The reason women aren’t included in the draft IS NOT because feminist organizations weren’t trying to get women included.”
Does this sentence make any sense? Reading it is a lot like having some one ask you to hold water.
Using a little free license I would re-write the sentence you are confused by to read:
“women were not included in the draft *despite* NOW’s best efforts to have the male-only draft overturned (and replaced with gender-neutral draft or the draft thrown out), not because NOW fought to maintain a male-only draft.”
“Makes us all more free”.
Free from what? Too many self-identified feminists lean toward Marxian-influenced communitarian politics. However much I favor gender egalitarianism, I will not drink the Marxian Kool-Aid, however much diluted.
“Gives us equal partners” — Feminism is not about equality, it is about privilege for women, and persecution of men. There is nothing “equal” about a man and a woman who step into a family court, or a criminal court, or any government institution. Or a college, or a school, or a hospital.
“Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles” — Feminism is above all else a movement to marginalize and criminalize masculinity. Even when a masculin trait is adopted by a woman, it is repressed (for example, 20% of children who are compelled to use Ritalin/amphetamine are women).
“Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions” — Oppression relies on preventing thought and repressing ideas. It is the exact opposite of considering many identities.
“Encourages us to speak in our own voices” — Silencing criticism and preventing discussion is the heart of the feminist movement. There is even a lexicon of terms used to enforce this kind of censorship, such as “mansplaining”, “man facts”, and “step up/step back”.
“Makes us all more free” — Separating fathers from their children is not “freedom”. Compelling boys to take personality-killing medication to cure them of their masculinity disease is not “freedom”. Preventing men and boys from having access to medical treatment is not “freedom”. Feminism has nothing to do with “freedom”.
Hitting on all cylinders!
““Encourages us to speak in our own voices” — Silencing criticism and preventing discussion is the heart of the feminist movement. There is even a lexicon of terms used to enforce this kind of censorship, such as “mansplaining”, “man facts”, and “step up/step back”.”
This one was so pertinent! I’d even expand on it bringing in the topic of rigged gender studies that don’t use random groups and gender studies that showed results counter to the feminist agenda being expunged. That’s not encouraging us to speak in our own voices!
What personality killing medication in particular?
Ritalin and amphetamine. About 4 million boys are currently cumpelled to take psychotropic personality suppressing (=killing long term) drugs as a condition of attending public school. The vast majority are boys, although some girls with “masculin” behavior are also targetted for personaility destruction. Typical “crimes” that result in enforced drug regime include drawing pictures of “masculin” objects (tanks, Jedi knights) and being too energetic in class.
I am on amphetamine for Adult ADD, I haven’t found my personality changing at all. It’s helped me with focus issues, I am more productive and my quality of life has increased. What do you mean by personality suppressing? They are used to increase dopamine levels in the brain to normal levels to help limit impulsive behaviour and major attention problems, but the baseline personality should still be there. But like all medication it probably affects each person differently, some of the anti-depressants I’ve tried made me feel numb and screwed my personality up a bit. Just wanted to let you know they don’t affect everyone negatively, and in my case they had an amazing boost to my quality of life.
I do agree though if they are over-prescribed it’s bad, I live in Australia though where they are a restricted drug and quite hard to get so they generally aren’t prescribed easily. In fact they’re illegal to have unless you have authorization here. Is what you talk about limited to the U.S.A?
Are you a young boy whose physiology and personality are still developing? Sorry Archy, but think about it, these drugs are restricted in Australia for a reason. In Canada, they are restricted by age (under a certain age can’t be prescribed them, though they are being prescribed.).
They’re restricted due to being stimulants and they can be abused when used in higher dosages. I was on ritalin as a child though with only positive effects. I think it’s a case by case issue, some will be ok with the drug, others may not.
You may be misunderstanding me. I wondered how it would be possible to find more people like myself to get in positions of leadership in feminism to change the system.
The ultimate roadblock is going to be the ones in leadership that rail against your ideas one feminism. You wouldn’t be the first feminist that’s been treated like a traitor because you went against the mainstream portion of the movement. Either they have to recognize the error of their ways, be removed, or fade from the forefront over time.
A lot of women who are feminist (or consider themselves such) have no fucking idea that these issues are there. So I bring them up. Johnny Appleseed and all that.
I’m glad you do but I’ll tell you something else. You aren’t just dealing with people who don’t know about this stuff. You are also dealing with people who know good and hell well that this stuff is happening but actively deny it.
And it doesn’t much matter to you all if I do, I get that, but if it makes the world a more equitable place, I’m happy to do my part.
Actually it does matter, to those of us who talk to you in a civil manner. And I’ll tell you the difference between you and most other folks that ID as feminist. You manage to make that statement without snobbishly declaring yourself better than those who don’t ID as such.
And besides, you played a part in that “Treating the Hate” piece I did a while back.
Keep it up.
In their own words:
“Gives us equal partners”
http://londonfeministnetwork.org.uk/what-weve-done/letter-writing-campaigns/we-object-to-plans-to-grant-anonymity-to-rape-defendants
“Provides a model for consciously changing gender roles”
http://web.archive.org/web/20070708213232/http://michnow.org/jointcustody507.htm
http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html
“Provokes us to consider the many identities that yoke us, sometimes in competing directions”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/womens-prisons-should-all-close-within-a-decade-7240659.html
“Encourages us to speak in our own voices” —
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/05/03/SFU-Mens-Centre/
“Makes us all more free”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/659dkrod.asp
“This article, for example, isn’t saying that these are the only ways feminism has helped men, or that feminism hasn’t potentially also harmed men in other ways. As much as feminism isn’t a monolith, there are some general statements that can be made about feminism as a social ideology, and the ones Justin listed are part of that. It’s speaking in general terms, but it’s not a generalization”
Ok, fine. But then why can’t we talk in general terms about how feminism has harmed men???
More specifically will an article titled “10 ways feminism has harmed men” ever be published here?
I mean judging by the precedent set here our article would have WAYore concrete data lol
I have to admit he has a point folks, if it’s fine to generalize on the good that feminism has done for men then we need to discuss the harm feminism has done for men as well. Unless you want to specify and say certain feminists under the banner of feminism helped men, which would separate them from other feminists under the feminist banner who harmed men (by what others here are saying). I have no troubles seeing an article discuss the negatives or positives, as long as both are labelled generalizations or specified in some way.
Considering feminism is 2 or more separate ideas to people (one is gynocentric, the other is inclusive of all humans), how can anyone generalize “feminism” in positive or negative form? What part of feminism helped men? Did/do the radfems help men or do they not exist in this authors eyes?
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?
Seems to me you are doing to the comments here precisely what you accuse them of, just with the use of “much” in the opening line, and the lack of any particular comment being singled out as a way to dodge criticism. Your last paragraph in particular gives me this impression. But here’s my response non-the-less.
The problem is the double standard of monolithic generalization that is being perpetrated. We are being told to accept that feminism (as a monolithic group) has done these good things, but when we point to examples how that assertion is wrong, instead of acknowledging feminism isn’t a monolithic group and identifying what faction of feminism promotes that good thing and that other aspects oppose it, instead we are told we are not allowed to view feminism as monolithic, thus, making it impossible to refute the points he’s promoting, not because the points can’t be refuted, but because there is a double standard that cuts off all criticism.
Furthermore, pointing out that these particular examples don’t actually apply to men is not a denial that feminism hasn’t ever done anything good for men, just that these examples don’t deliver as described. That said, I personally don’t believe feminism has actually done anything for men that wasn’t done by accident.
PS, saying all feminism is tainted by the actions of the radicals working under the umbrella (and thus influence and protection) of feminism, is actually a true statement so long as feminism continues to harbor those radicals. But this is actually a different issue than what you are discussing.
If a powerful social movement had discriminated against you from birth, you might feel differently.
Isn’t this just an argument against communism? I mean if communism wasn’t so terrible to the people under it, we would have accepted these ideas more willingly. Likewise if the big F wasn’t so terrible to men under it, we’d be more inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt.
I just looked at the article “Dad wars, you say? Are dads are winning.” on GMP and started to wonder. If feminism really provided a model for constantly changing gender roles and feminists taught us it could happen then why are men who are the primary caregivers to their children not as well respected as women in the workforce? If I believed that it’s possible to change the gender roles for myself, wouldn’t I then believe that it’s possible for others to do so as well. Every woman in the workforce would necessarily believe that men could choose fatherhood. Every man in the workforce who believes that female co-workers are his equal must necessarily believe that men are equal as parents. This doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems that feminism changed the perception for women, but didn’t necessarily change the perception for men though they seem ready to take credit for the advancement men made on their own.
This reminds me of a ‘debate’ I had about 10 years ago while watching a show you all might remember called ‘Alley McBeal’. Two of the characters worked in a law firm together and eventually got married. Then they got pregnant. The man assumed his wife would quit and take care of the baby. She informed him that she planned to continue her career and that they would have to both be full time parents. He rebelled against the thought as he demanded a classic role for himself. Unfortunately instead of exploring this intelligently, they decided to make him seem like a buffoon as he dyed his hair, started smoking cigars and spouting chauvanistic and even misogynistic viewpoints, all mean to discredit his basic with to adhere to classic gender roles.
Naturally my female friends were up in arms about his behavior. I then asked them; what if the show took a different tact; SHE was thrilled she could finally quit her job and looked forward to being a full time mom while he supportered her, the baby, the house. HE rejected the notion and told her she would be working full time just like him for the rest of her life as he wanted to be a full time dad too and she’d have to do both as well. Naturally there was no support for that position; SHE was the one who had the right to choose, not him.
In Illinois fathers rights activists fought to criminalize interference with child visitation. It was vigorously opposed by the feminist lobby here. Their reasoning was that it would prevent mothers from keeping children away from unfit or abusive fathers. I think their real objection was that women would have to prove that the father was unfit or abusive to deny him visitation or force supervised visitation. Women should be the ultimate deciders after all they are more ethical and would never knowingly keep a man’s children from him out of spite or to obtain some financial advantage. I’m being sarcastic.
“In Illinois fathers rights activists fought to criminalize interference with child visitation. It was vigorously opposed by the feminist lobby here. Their reasoning was that it would prevent mothers from keeping children away from unfit or abusive fathers.”
But this is the same logic that is used across the board, including requiring women to at least *inform* the father that she planned on aborting his child. It is entirely antithetical to our justice system to deny any group of people justice or civil rights blamed on their potential or presumed innocence. This is profiling writ as large as you can get.
We do not allow negative generalizations of groups of people based on their beliefs. So, we do not allow critiques of either individuals nor groups based on their religious beliefs. Nor do we allow criticisms of groups based on nationality — you can say “In France we tend to…” but not “All Frenchmen are…” We encourage people to criticize political issues but not individuals or groups based on their political beliefs. Nor to we allow criticisms of groups based on affiliations with what people do — we do not allow negative generalizations of “all teachers”, for example, or “all union workers” or “all soldiers”. We don’t allow generalizations of people based on age “all old people” is just as harmful as “all young people.” Because of the fact that we are talking about issues specific to men it is more difficult not to generalize about “all men” or “all women”, but we try, to the extent possible, not to allow those as well.
The reason this positive generalization of feminism was allowed is because we are talking about feminism as a belief system here. Believing in — and even just understanding — the ideals of feminism is, in Justin’s opinion, a good thing for men.
So, taking feminism out of the narrative of this post for a moment — if you are a man, and you you wanted to align yourself with an organization that wanted to work towards 1) Equal partnerships and equal power with other humans, regardless of gender, race, nationality or belief systems 2) More open-minded thinking around gender roles 3) Allowing both men and women to be seen as complex humans with multiple identities and not man-only or woman-only or identities. 4) Allowing both men and women to speak in their own voices and 5) Allowing us freedom from societal norms.
Take all of those points. If there was a group that was not called feminism — would you want those things? For yourself? For others? I would be really interested to know what you thought.
We actually are very conscious of not allowing generalized criticism of men. But we talk about men — the good and the bad, because we are a site with discussions of men at its core. We are not a site with discussions of feminism as its core, although — like with all issues that our audience feels strongly about one way or another — we do seek to better understand it.
Why am I being moderated to death for simply posting comments about some of the harm against men feminism has caused even when I state the proper disclaimers to identify the subsets of feminism I am talking about?
John, I found one that was not approved and approved it. It sounded like it was the one you are talking about — not generalizing, proper disclaimers.
Thanks Lisa for the very quick response. I’m sorry to be bending your ear so much lately.
I will endeavor to stick to the letter and spirit of the posting standards.
I wish there were a way for comments to come up hidden stating “under moderation” with a highlight of the offending section & an edit button.
Understood. We are short on moderators these days because — believe it or not — it’s a REALLY hard job. Thanks for your patience.
There have been many of those in comments and even entire articles, such as those on “rape culture” and “the patriarchy.”
If a new leaf is being turned,, I’m very glad to know we won’t be subject to those generalizations any more. Applause!!
We really have a full team of editors checking and double-checking for triggers and generalizations in ways we didn’t in the past.
“We actually are very conscious of not allowing generalized criticism of men.”
Applause!!!
Lisa, I am glad to hear that. But, this sounds like a new leaf is being turned because many comments regarding the so-called “rape culture” and the “patriarchy” and even articles were/are generalized criticisms of men. I won’t miss those.
It doesn’t make any sense to talk about modern men without talking about feminism. That movement has had the single largest impact on men than any other. To generalize about men and not generalize about feminism cripples the discussion. Also, to allow positive generalizations of feminism and to not allow negative generalizations of it cripples the discussion.
Well feminism as a belief system differs person to person, to some it means equality for all, to others its equality for WOMEN only and a few it’s probably female supremacy. Would you run an article the 5 ways (insert any group that has done good and bad) etc helps men/women with positive generalizations about those groups where some of their actions are seen as negative.
You see feminism get’s this good reputation on all of these points but the truth seems to be quite a lot of feminist power/lobbying has doubts over it. As many have said things like VAWA are actually harmful to men so feminism get’s this good publicity via positive generalizations and treated like a monolith but also gets the “not all feminists are like that” and “feminism isn’t a monolith” treatment when it comes to the bad. As a belief system it depends on which version you use, so already generalizations are wrong from the start because feminism doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone, hence it not being a monolith.
Do you understand how people are confused? It’s the hypocrisy like asserting catholicism is good whilst ignoring the sexual abuse of boys by priests major coverups, there needs to be responsibility taken that some are bad and they need to be called out for it but how often do you see feminists truly calling out other feminists in articles? The belief system for feminism may be decent in some cases but the actions taken by those trying to make it a reality have caused harm to men in some ways, if equality was the game then gendered laws like VAWA wouldn’t be supported so I think the author is living a lil in a dreamworld expecting feminism to be a word for egalitarianism when really feminism to many and in politics especially is highly gynocentric. The egalitarians need to shake up the ranks and either make a new movement, or get rid of the gynocentrics who have power and influence, otherwise you’ll just continue to see major distrust towards feminism as a group just as any group would face trust issues due to extremely conflicting messages about their goals.
You may notice in these comments that none of them (that I see) actually dislike the points if they really do happen, they are questioning how much feminism played a part and probably questioning why we continually give all this praise to feminism whilst most in the group seem oblivious to the harm done to men by the group, the lack of accountability, responsibility in calling out the bad elements, lack of media attention to the negatives done, etc. Hell if you criticize feminism you’ll most likely be called a woman-hater, like many beliefs it seems to be a religion to some where you don’t dare question it because it is just! It is the truth! Any critics are misogynist!
How about an article negatively generalizing the 5 ways feminist lobbying has harmed men, would that pass muster? Or even an article 5 ways SOME feminist lobbying has harmed men? (free from generalization?)
I do understand why people are confused, and we are going to think carefully about how best to approach this issue in the future while still talking about it. I understand the concerns. I think most people here would simply like to move past where we were into a new eqalitarians for equality place. But we’re not quite sure what that looks like yet.
Wow, Archy. This is why I love reading your responses. They put into words more eloquently what I feel. And you’ve done it again, my friend. Very succint.
It’s what I feel as well. Like I said, in an earlier comment, I believe in the egalitarian side. It exists, yes. Feminism is something I don’t object to as a whole.
What I object to is invalidation of its other side. Particularly because I was rejected by this other side harshly due to membership in the oppressive class in their eyes. Regardless of my struggles.
Archy: “You may notice in these comments that none of them (that I see) actually dislike the points if they really do happen, they are questioning how much feminism played a part and probably questioning why we continually give all this praise to feminism whilst most in the group seem oblivious to the harm done to men by the group, the lack of accountability, responsibility in calling out the bad elements, lack of media attention to the negatives done, etc. Hell if you criticize feminism you’ll most likely be called a woman-hater, like many beliefs it seems to be a religion to some where you don’t dare question it because it is just! It is the truth! Any critics are misogynist!”
Exactly.
Archy, have you ever considered starting your own blog? Your gift for words and the form of writing would certainly serve you even better in a space of your own design.
‘
“Take all of those points. If there was a group that was not called feminism — would you want those things? For yourself? For others? I would be really interested to know what you thought.”
I’m uncertain why there needs to be a group in order to want these things? If there wasn’t group at all, could I not want these things? What if there are two or more groups? My problem here is that these particular things are being attributed to feminism without justification. Sure, some feminists may believe these ideals, but to claim these ideals are “because” of feminism is something else entirely. Furthermore, the insinulation that it can ONLY be because of feminism that we have these ideals is also dishonest, and given the contradictions between the claim these are feminist ideals and the fact many feminists actually do the opposite, yet we are still supposed to be grateful to feminism, is offensive (to me at least).
” I think most people here would simply like to move past where we were into a new eqalitarians for equality place.”
Easily enough done, just abandon the feminism label. Feminism does not have a monopoly on the ideals they claim to have, so there is no reason to stick with it if there are many within that movement that don’t stand by those ideals.
I don’t think that anyone was insinuating that they were ONLY because of feminism. And it wasn’t even meant as a “you should feel grateful” as an explanation. But I understand your concerns Mark. I’d personally prefer to stand by those ideals and not even take credit for them.
Onward.
“I don’t think that anyone was insinuating that they were ONLY because of feminism”
Actually, his opening line very much insinuates it:
“Can’t think of a single reason why men should support feminism? Here are five”
If these ideals are not feminist exclusive, why should we support feminism because of them? Also keep this phrase in mind when you read the bolded beginnings of each of his points. It basically comes down to:
Men should support feminism because feminism …gave, promoted, provided, etc.
I am trying to figure out why a post I made refuting Justice Casio’s ‘Five Ways’ was moderated and removed.
“As long as women still feel the pulls of gender roles, men are forced by the laws of physics into an equal and opposing position”
As long as women have the options of any gender role they want, men are forced by the laws of physics into whatever position suits whatever woman at whatever time, even the same woman at different times. It is not the ‘pull of gender roles’ that is the issue, it is the insistence that it all be about ‘choice’ and female choice at that.
“We do not allow negative generalizations of groups of people based on their beliefs. So, we do not allow critiques of either individuals nor groups based on their religious beliefs. Nor do we allow criticisms of groups based on nationality — you can say “In France we tend to…” but not “All Frenchmen are…” We encourage people to criticize political issues but not individuals or groups based on their political beliefs”
So let me understand; you can and will post an article that discusses the merits of the political issues of a particular group, feminists, but then discourage, moderate and delete almost every well thought out rebuttal of those issues about that group. So: Article about why Feminism is good for all: Allowed. Article about why it is not: deleted since it is a criticism of the same group.
Exactly. If someone wrote a post talking about the how they see any organization, movement or group as something that benefited them and the people they identified with, and men in particular, we would certainly consider publishing it. But we would not consider publishing an article that bashed those same organizations.
Look — I just don’t understand — what exactly is the negative talking about feminism as a movement accomplishing? What have you, personally, accomplished with it Michael? I can tell you a ton of things we’ve accomplished with The Good Man Project — reached over 4 million people from every country in the world, helped get the conversation about men into the mainstream media, talked about really provocative topics from the point of view of men, helped men who have been abused feel less invisible, connected with organizations who are helping men in prison, men of color, men on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. We’ve talked about divorce, custody, suicide. We’ve also laughed, formed connections, shared a common bond with what is happening in the media.
Why — after all that we are doing here — are you trying to use our platform to derail feminism? That is not why we are here. There are other organizations that ARE trying to do that. Join forces with them if you want, but that is not our goal, that is not our mission.
“Exactly. If someone wrote a post talking about the how they see any organization, movement or group as something that benefited them and the people they identified with, and men in particular, we would certainly consider publishing it. But we would not consider publishing an article that bashed those same organizations.”
That isn’t even splitting hairs Lisa it is downright dishonest. I did not ask to have an article which attempted to “derail” feminism published. YOU published an article that attempted to explain 5 different ways in which tat group has benefited men. I refuted each and every one of those points and pointed out the hypocrisy and down right dishonesty of each of those points i.e. that feminism has NOT in fact benefited men in those ways e.g we did NOT get “equal partners”.
If your mission is to “talk about ” divorce/custody/feminism then be prepared for dissenting opinions. I as a man do not have to be so grateful that there is a conversation “about men” that I simply have to accept positions and notions that are entirely untrue or at the very least not consistent with my experience as a man without voicing my dissent. Is this not a forum for precisely that?
I challenge you to reconsider posting my rebuttal Lisa; it was not a ‘platform to derail feminism’; it was a rebuttal to an article you made a decision to publish that attempted to pretend to me and other readers that we have benefited from a movement in ways neither I nor most men here agree we have. If that is not your mission I’d recommend you reconsider exactly what you are doing here. I’d welcome your stated mission with open arms. Show me that that is indeed the case.
I am not going to respond to someone who accuses me of dishonesty.
You can either come to this discussion as equals. Or not at all.
“Look — I just don’t understand — what exactly is the negative talking about feminism as a movement accomplishing? ”
Accountability. It’s the same reason many rape hysteria groups keep talking about toxic masculinity, to try and hold men, all men (or at least all who don’t reject their own masculinity) accountable. In both case, there are in fact members of the group that commit the acts which are attempting to have accountability assigned, the difference is, men, or at least the vast majority of them, despise rape and rapists, and do what they can to stop it, in most circumstances (war brings out the worst in people, so it is an exception to this generalization. After all, generally, people see murder as despicable as well, but not so much in war ether). But when it comes to the harm feminism has done, nobody is willing to hold anyone else accountable. It’s all, wasn’t me, and feminism is not a monolith deflections, resulting in everything getting dumped on the undefined radical element, at which point, that radical element is given a pass because their radicals, and so nobody is held to account. But even when things are done by none radicals, the refusal to even examine the harms done by various feminist elements results in those actions being blamed on radicals and subsequently being ignored and/or given a pass. When we point to NOW action alerts that oppose equal parenting as an example that feminists oppose equal parenting, we’re told “feminism is not a monolith, but the fact is, many of the people who oppose equal parenting are feminists, so the statement is nether wrong, nor a statement of all of feminism, but it is taken as such to deny any aspect of feminism needs take any kind of accountability for it. without this accountability, we will continue to get opposition in the realm of equality, and so we continue to discuss the negatives of feminism along side the issues and potential solutions to those issues.
“Look — I just don’t understand — what exactly is the negative talking about feminism as a movement accomplishing?”
I think there is a level of feminism = good so anything under the banner holds more weight in passing. Calling into question the negative aspects would actually increase trust for the movement I think. Look at the common complaints of feminism in the comment section, so many find it hard to trust the movement entirely because of a lack of feminists themselves calling out the negative feminists such as the gynocentric-gone-crazy (gendered laws which ignore or harm men, gynocentric alone shouldn’t harm though) and the radfems-gone-crazy who pretty much are a hate-group. This lack of separating the feminists means all feminists represent the movement, including the crazies, so you get a hell of a lot of comments on how “feminists want to control the male population levels with selective abortion” and it seems a major lack of the decent feminists saying “Oi, stop that stupid speech now”. I see muslims, christians, etc calling out the terrorists, child abusers, homophobes etc but not many feminists calling out the bad elements of the movement(I think HeatherN is one of the only ones I’ve seen truly call out the bad feminists). We need more HeatherN’s because feminists like that are what help separate the good from the bad and the trust will raise accordingly. I don’t think I’ve seen people truly distrust the feminists who are willing to call out the bad, infact there is a lot of praise for the egalitarian feminists here on this site and most of the anti-feminists I’d say actually support the egalitarian feminists.
But if all the major media stays quiet on the harm feminism does then how the F does any of it get fixed up? The GMP could run an article detailing some negative aspects of SOME feminism with a big disclaimer supporting egalitarian feminism if needs be, it’d get the discussion rolling and tell people that many of the commentators here aren’t anti-feminist but they’re anti-negativeversionoffeminism. When you hear consistently by some of the commentators that feminism has harmed men, then there is definitely a cause for concern but usually people just assume that person to be a misogynist, woman hating anti-feminist when the reality is they’re probably egalitarian at heart but see the negative parts of feminism and how it has harmed men.
Like it or not but there seems to be a subset of feminism with power that is either actively trying to harm men, or lobbies for gendered laws where the side-effect (known or unknown) ends up harming men. I hope it’s the latter, unintentional, but quite frankly they should have picked up on it and realized by now. It’s become far too common to see these comments calling feminism into question to ignore, and I see these men and women calling out for someone to take notice, maybe they feel powerless to help change the movement for the better but who is going to notice if it’s kept to the backwaters of internet media, talked about as misogynist and thus discrediting it, etc.
Archy, I appreciate your dialogue on this topic.
The only think I can say is that we will try to talk more about the issues — both positive and negative. But it’s similar to what I’m trying to get all our writers to do about political issues — don’t bash the other political party, or the individuals in the party, but instead talk about why you think the issues themselves are important and what needs to change.
Is pointing to damaging or hostile policies considered bashing? If I point to a school whose women centre is spouting rhetoric to try and deny a men’s centre, can I not point out 1: the opposition is clearly an example of discrimination against men? and 2: that the rhetoric is both hostile towards men and, in many case, entirely untrue. 2a: that the rhetoric is based off of many of feminism’s claims?
As long as you are talking about a specific issue and and arguing in good faith, it’s fine. The problem we have is that it becomes obvious that people’s whole goal is to discredit the entire feminist movement. And that’s it — every argument they make, pushing their own agenda. We did not build this platform so that other people can use it for their turf wars. And it’s not allowed in our comment policy.
Also, commenters who help create a positive environment for everyone are more apt to be heard and given the benefit of the doubt.
We did not build this platform so that other people can use it for their turf wars. And it’s not allowed in our comment policy.
However, I’m sure you can understand that the various commenters here feel aggrieved because it was only until relatively recently that this policy actually was fairly implemented. I mean, there are still plenty of posts by Marcotte, Schwyzer, Futrelle, and others, who clearly used TGMP to bash MRM groups, calling us misogynists… among other things.
This doesn’t justify a backlash, but it does contextualize it. Men in the MRM have long memories and bitter experiences. It’s easy to trigger us when the positives of Feminism are posited without proper context and caveats. 5 ways Feminism helps men is disingenuous because it falls into that category of “Feminism cares about men too!” which has always been merely about showing men to be an after-thought. It reminds us of our disposability, of our shaming and silencing by Feminists, Feminism, and associated commentators. And the fact that there is no list talking about the 5 ways Feminism should be helping men/doesn’t help men/is failing men, is very telling. It speaks to the protectionism afforded Feminism that wasn’t until recently afforded to Masculism on this site.
As you can tell, many commenters here really don’t like that. They’re upset. They’re angry. They’re demanding more equality. They want to see more about how they’ve lived, how they’ve dealt with gender issues, and how others have treated them because of their gender. More importantly, they want some accountability. They want a sincere reckoning for the problems of Feminism, because when have they ever gotten one?
True, this wouldn’t make financial sense for TGMP. It wouldn’t increase your readership. It wouldn’t increase your ad revenue. You’d likely lose some prominent contributors.
But it’d be the right thing to do. That’s just my two cents though — spend it how you will.
I do get the context, Zek. As the publisher, I take responsibility for that context.
Everyone here has been invited to write for us. We ask that all the time. Write about your experience, add your voice to the complete, multi-siced, cultural context we are forming here.
I just replied to Random_Stranger on a different thread. I’m ok with approaching it this way: