Men and feminism

That doesn't sound like a mark in Person A's favor, but I'd be more interested in how he or she interacted with people in person.

We have a deep ethic of customer service here, that every person be treated with courtesy and respect, regardless of who they are or what they want or how they behave.

I train and support and expect my staff to never reflect rudeness or hostility back toward people who are rude or hostile.

Not everyone can handle that. Of course, in any kind of difficult or extreme case, they can summon me. Dealing with difficult people is my specialty.

 

I apologize for coming in here after a long absence and contributing to the uproar. Who the hell do I think I am, right? I can't say I wouldn't think the same thing.

And I am sorry if I was attacking Shadowex, but that wasn't my aim. I wanted to be measured and objective. I didn't even respond to the things he said about me personally up there - all of which are ugly and either inaccurate or blatantly untrue.

Feminism is a great subject and it's got a lot of room for fun and love and really nice things to talk about. I think it's sad that it's become such a loaded conversation here because, frankly, except for Shadowex, I think we have a group better able to discuss it without enmity than we have had in all of TFP history. I am a female feminist, I love, love, love men (even though I have been hurt by them in a myriad of ways) and I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks or has to say about my personal expression of feminism. And, for sure, no one is going to iron clamp my heart and good intentions with their fucking anger. There. I've probably been holding onto that for over a year.

 

17 posts will take more time to put together a response to than I have before my seminar, you'll have it by tonight/early morning. If someone doesn't decide to pull a classic TFP and shut things down after all of you get to dogpile on me but before I get to respond.

Some things important enough to point out now though:

It's a loaded conversation here because, except for me, nobody here is willing to substantively dissent from feminism. I am the ONLY person willing to post that is willing to meaningfully criticize feminism and not simply resort to "that's not true feminism" or "they're a minority stop attacking feminism" when it comes to any of its misconduct.

Any pretense that there's any meaningful "discussion" is belied by two facts: First that my position is so despised as to be described using slurs that even the notoriously apologetic SlateStar has openly pointed out are virtually indistinguishable from neonazi caricatures, and second that it's found so utterly incapable of being legitimate that the very idea of respecting the possibility of that legitimacy is openly derided in posts like Baraka's (#152). You have passionate conversations about everything else because you're willing to accept that everything else CAN be discussed.

You're not willing to accept any discussion of feminism except in terms of backslapping over how awesome it is or being obsequiously apologetic for even bringing up some miniscule flaw only under the conditions of already accepting that feminism is still absolutely in the right.

I mean just look at "Gotcha" posts like this:

"I'm going to talk about how much you suck but oh wait we totally need to drop the subject now that I've already posted all of that and if you so much as respond disagreeing you're a 'tsunami of outrage' and that proves me right".

These are not the actions of people interested in good faith discussions, they're the actions of people looking to abuse anyone who disagrees with their sacred cow and then portray themselves as the victim for doing it. Especially when coming from the very person whose conduct was so hostile, so viciously intolerant, that she literally scared other people out of posting for fear they would be treated the way I was.

Talking about feminism on TFP isn't a discussion, it's a church service, and just like the religious right here in the US it's a church that screams about how victimized it is while busy utterly pummeling someone else's face in to make an example to anyone else who might dare speak heresy.


Now while you all seem to have defaulted to the very straw men in SlateStar's wonderful composite image, seeing me as some keyboard-bound hyper-emotional "hysterical" (oh the irony) poster that does nothing but maintain some comically extreme level of emotion all day, I actually spend most of my time taking care of other things entirely... in fact that's why so many of you are often able to pile on posts while I'm still typing a response to something further up the thread. I'll have a more thorough response for you later.


p.s.

Or maybe if you tried the route of not creating an ever more hyperbolically negative straw man of me in your head, propped up by ever more negative interpretations of my posts you insist are correct even as I explain otherwise repeatedly, you'd have an easier time having a conversation.

The only people worth arguing with are people whose opinions you respect enough to try and change, even if those opinions are held so strongly as to be practically articles of religious faith.

 

Formula.

 

Feminism is what he says it is. There is absolutely no way he could mischaracterize feminism because he has links to facts. Consequently, if we disagree with how he characterizes feminism, it is because we are incapable of handling criticism of feminism, not because he missed something important in his characterization of feminism.

In other words, we are all unreasonable because we are unwilling to let him completely define all of the terms of the discussion.

 

I certainly can understand the frustration of someone who wants feminism to be a monolith.
When they see something or someone doing bad in the name of the feminism they want to be able to attack the whole thing just as when a priest has sex with a choir boy the people go after the church as a whole.
Well there is a reason to go after the church, they moved the priest around, covered up for them, didn't protect the kids, etc.
They have a system, a hierarchy, people who make decision in the name of the organization.
Feminism has no such thing.

Feminism is personal to each person with one basic idea, equal rights for woman.
You can't get more basic and more complicated then that.
As I said before my feminism comes from my mother and is carried through my daughters.
That's about as personal and deep as you can get.
It's understandable that I would take it personally if someone were to attack my beliefs.

However if they wanted to point out some assholes who used feminism to do awful things (and prove it), I'd be the first person to jump all over that.
I'm not a fan of people who take good things and turn them to dreck.
However those are individuals, they are no more part of my feminism then the shooters at Charlie Hebdo were of the religion of the police officer the killed.
Don't tell me I have to change what I believe because of the actions of a handful of people I don't know or want to have anything to do with.

Feminism is not one great, powerful monolith and to attack with vitriol is punching down, not up.
Here it might be a majority but I promise out in the rest of the world we are sadly out numbered.
I especially love the people who say "Oh, I believe in equal rights for woman but I'm not a feminist."
Head to desk, I'm sorry they've bought the constant stream of media that has made out feminists to be bad but at least they have the right idea.

I had promised myself not to post again but this is more about the nature of feminism and how it is something personal to all of us.
It has to be seen that way, not as some kind of organization that has secret meetings or a massive cabal that rules the world.

 

I want to answer these, but I agree the Ask A Politician thread is a better place. I'll copy these there.

 

There are parallels between the people who replace Black Lives Matter with All Lives Matter and the people who think Feminism should be replaced with Egalitarianism. There's this idea that if you focus on a part of a problem, it means you don't care about the rest of the problem, and I think this idea is plainly ridiculous. If Feminism achieves any amount of success in promoting equality among genders the goals of Egalitarianism will be that much closer (if there is any way that they actually differ from the goals of Feminism).

 

There may be people who have the greatest intentions in the world when they say that, just like the people who say they believe in equal rights for woman but they aren't feminists.
It's not fair of me to assume anything about why they are saying it but all too often it seems like they have accepted a certain image of feminism that has nothing to do with what it really is.
Every time I see feminism portrayed on TV it seems to be as a group of crazed lesbian, pamphlet carrying, men hating, womyn.
And that's the mainstream movies and TV, not Rush Limbaugh.
Is it any wonder that people are backing away from that as fast as they can?

 

I think that feminism is present on several TV shows, and it doesn't come across as man hating at all. For example, Parks and Recreation is totally a show where feminism is a fundamental component of the milieu. So is Broad City. So is The Mindy Project. So is Girls. These are shows where feminism is just there, in the background, not making a big deal out of itself, but still subtly affecting the relationships of the characters and how they respond to the world around them.

Writers who write feminists as overbearing man haters are probably (and I know I'm generalizing here) not feminists.

 

I can certainly see how the reactions to the actions of feminism can be understood. I think the actions of feminists could eventually lead them to be considered in the same light to the public as men's right advocates. Their misandry could get to the point where the movement as a whole could be delegitimized in the same way that I think that men's rights movements are perceived to be ridden with misogyny. I just don't think it's gotten that far yet. In an ideal world I think feminism and MRM groups would be cooperating towards a common goal. I also don't ever see this happening, because people suck.

 

You're right about the shows where feminism is a background aspect of the show.
I would say Buffy is a feminist show and so is Xena.
But all too often when a character is actually branded as feminist they become a stereotype.
Certainly not all the time but often enough that it can be cringe worthy.

It was a lot worse in the nineties and I'm really glad TV has gotten better.

 

Feminism isn't just background in the shows I mentioned, it's a fundamental component of who many of the characters are. These shows portray substantial nuance in their characterizations of men and women and these characterizations reflect feminist sensibilities. If feminists were all as strident as some folks think, these shows would be completely different, given that they are written by feminists.

Shows that portray feminists as overbearing, man-hating shrews are doing so because they think that's what their viewers expect feminists to be. People want feminism to be this loud, coarse thing, when it generally isn't.

 

I don't accept that misandry is necessarily an aspect of feminism. For certain, I have read some really extreme things out there written by women who actually do hate men. But it's an extreme fringe of the feminist population that is entirely preoccupied with the physical aspects of sexual intercourse and whether it can ever be consensual. I don't identify with them. I think intercourse is fucking great.

Of all the feminists I know, and I know many, none, NONE could be characterized as extreme or misandrist. We want equal pay for equal work. We want our experiences and our points of view to be respected. We want less harassment when we're out in bars or on the street. We want to have people not jump down our throats and call us names when we mention that something might be a little sexist. And, you know, even if none of those things happen, we're still not out to end the institution of marriage and become castrating lesbians (unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing). We don't give a fuck if you're a dude who wants to wear a fucking fedora. And we don't even really care that much about pornography or sexual exploitation of women in the media because some of us like it and find ways to let it empower us. And mostly, and really importantly, we realize that there are much bigger problems in the world that deserve and gain much more of our attention. You would never know that by reading the words of the, like, none female feminists who bother to post on this board.

 

This right here is the fundamental problem. Equality and Feminism are not synonymous, they are not inseperable, no matter how much feminists insist they are. Making Feminism synonymous with the very concept of equality itself is the ultimate expression of the Affective Death Spiral, it makes Feminism utterly uncriticizable and unopposable no matter what feminists are actually doing.

Feminism is a political/social ideology/movement that must be judged on the merits of its most widely supported actions and words just as much the Republican Party needs to be judged on the merits of its most widely supported actions and words. If I were to insist to you that "The GOP stands for freedom and prosperity" and insist any criticism of the GOP's actions in recent decades was anti-republican or anti-freedom you would consider me a lunatic at best or enabling their deplorable conduct on the less charitable end.

Or lets consider this from another perspective: "Anti-feminist". The serious use of this word as a negative term signifies the rejection of the very existence of a legitimate non-feminist viewpoint. It signifies that to merely be not-feminist, let alone to oppose feminists or feminism in some meaningful way, is unacceptable.

And the thing is even aside from those terrifying implications it's functionally useless. Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali "Anti-Feminist" because she considers american "feminists" to be idiots obsessed with trivial bullshit and so damaging that "feminism" needs to be completely reclaimed from them? Or is Amanda Marcotte "Anti-Feminist" for using feminism as a vehicle for such vile hate that even SlateStar only half-jokingly refers to her as a vogon in a human-suit? Is Hanna Rosin "anti-feminist" for insisting men made-to-penetrate need to be recognized as rape victims? Or is Mary Koss "anti-feminist" for erasing those male victims in the first place? Is Dr. Hoff-Sommers "anti-feminist" for breaking from a majority of mainstream feminist dogmatism?

If "feminism is not monolith" then who is the arbiter of who is or isn't anti-feminist? If "Feminism is not monolith" then there can be no such thing as "anti-feminist" because there's no monolithic definition of feminism that all those claiming to be "feminist" share, and therefore it must be legitimate to oppose certain branches of "feminism".

This is the very core of why you and I will never come to any kind of agreement. In practice you define "Feminism" as "equality" which means "Feminism" itself (and "feminists" in any meaningful way) can never truly deserve to be criticized or opposed... anyone opposing "Feminism" or "feminists" is thus opposing equality and thus a misogynist monster. No matter how severe and widely supported the misconduct is "Feminism" itself remains an untained externality projecting into the world, anyone who does something wrong just "doesn't understand feminism" or "isn't a true feminist" or must be a "vocal minority".

On the other hand I define feminism as nothing more than a shared ideology which claims to fight for equality, and as a fallible worldly collection of individuals can in fact wind up being anti-equality despite those claims otherwise. Feminism itself is fallible, it can be held culpable for its failures rather than having them explained away as "not true feminism" or "not understanding feminism" or some other handwave.

If you can not make that separation you will never be able to have any productive discourse with anyone who has an actual substantive disagreement with feminism, because that disagreement will automatically render them "anti-feminist" and thus anti-equality.

The only way to productively discuss any ideology is to seperate the reality of its existence from the ideals it lays claim to. Judaism claims a whole bunch of great things but I'm perfectly fine tearing it a new one on things we get wrong. Islam does so as well but what's become of it in the middle east is clearly monstrous. The Republicans claim to stand for the usual star-spangled-awesome Applause Lights but in practice do a really good job of the exact opposite of a lot of them.

The GOP claims to support small businesses, middle class america, and personal liberty. Opposing the GOP doesn't mean I do not support those ideals, it means I think the GOP isn't living up to its claims and is doing things I oppose even if they insist I'm a freedom hating communazocialist kenyan KGB agent.

Feminism is not "equal rights for women". Feminism is an ideology with tenets such as patriarchy and nowadays rape culture that claims to fight for "equal rights for women". Looking at the mainstream actions and output of feminism and determing that claim is not being met, and that feminism is in fact destructive and worth opposing, does not mean that someone opposes "equal rights for women". It means they have determined that feminism is not fighting for "equal rights for women" but rather doing something else worthy of opposing even if feminism insists they're a woman hating fedora neckbeard dudebro MRA pissbaby shitlord cishet misogynist.

This is having it both ways. Feminism is not monolith when someone wants to criticise feminist misconduct, but feminism IS monolith when it's time to attack that person for criticising feminism.

However if they wanted to point out some assholes who used feminism to do awful things (and prove it), I'd be the first person to jump all over that.
I'm not a fan of people who take good things and turn them to dreck.
However those are individuals, they are no more part of my feminism then the shooters at Charlie Hebdo were of the religion of the police officer the killed.
Don't tell me I have to change what I believe because of the actions of a handful of people I don't know or want to have anything to do with.[/quote]

And what happens when it's not a handful anymore? When these people write for audiences in the millions, control multi-million dollar lobby efforts, own the largest feminist websites and organizations out there, and have tens of thousands of devoted supporters even individually? What happens then?

When does it stop being "some assholes [using] feminism" and start being feminism? How much power, how many supporters do they need? At what point will you say "Okay, feminism has a problem"?

Feminism has such profound institutional power disproportionate to its size that feminist activism can shape federal and state policy with laws like VAWA, SB967, and family laws, cause massive nationwide policy changes with things like the campus sexual assault moral panic, conduct bullying campaigns so widespread and intense they bring grown men to tears on international television, dominate the media to the point even felonies are swept under the rug and anyone opposing them is shut out or demonized utterly. Even when nearly 30 of our nations most preeminent scholars of law sign a letter saying "You are fucking up hugely" feminists still steamroll them and get their way.

If you want to know what "punching down" looks like go back to the catcalling thread and re-watch the video where feminist activists spent 10 hours trolling the poorest, blackest parts of New York for footage to let them play off of the ancient racist fear of black males sexually preying on white females for money. Go read about the only men's shelter in all of canada getting bankrupted due to feminist opposition to its mere existence. Go talk to the CECS about how half of all sexually trafficked children in the entire USA have literally nowhere to go, and not because of patriarchy but because of the feminist denial and erasure of male victimhood.

There's a Very Good Comic that sums up how the "punching down" thing is abused as a defense.

If feminism isn't monolith who are you to decide what it really is? Why can't they look at the staggering popularity of writers like Amanda Marcotte, Lindy West, Jessica Valenti, Megan Murphy, and decide that's representative of Feminism? Why can't they look at things like how Scott Aaronson was treated and how massively popular and supported that behavior was and decide that's representative of Feminism?

Maybe the problem here is, like SlateStar wrote, the near universal actions and words of actual feminists who are massively popular and have no meaningful opposition whatsoever.
--- merged: Jan 14, 2015 6:01 AM ---
Now somebody post a random dot or something so I can post the other half... I broke 20 thousand characters writing this all day.