Where did feminism go wrong?
September 2nd, 2009 by Pelle BillingThis is a question I often ask myself. How could a movement that originally was fighting to attain the simple goal of civil and legal equality between the sexes, turn into a radical feminist movement that considers all men to be inherently oppressive or even evil?
Sure, there are still many feminists who still belong to “old school” feminism, and they are usually very sane people. The best example is perhaps Christina Hoff-Sommers who has written a couple of
Let’s have a look at the factors that I believe turned feminism into a mess:
- There was a lack of clarity from the start of the feminist movement. Was it a movement for gender equality, or was it a movement that promoted women’s rights? This is a huge distinction, and the assumption that these two struggles are always compatible is far from true.
- This lack of clarity is also apparent in the name chosen for the movement. If it had been called equalism, then the end goal would have been clear. However, the name feminism implies that the end goal is female supremacy or something along those lines.
- By creating a strong feminist movement, men’s issues are automatically defined as being non-existent or at the very least far smaller than female issues (which is something I dispute in my writings). Originally this was less of a problem, since feminism was focusing on equal rights in society, which was an honorable struggle and a process that needed to happen. However, once equal rights had been implemented, feminism still assumed that women were far worse off than men, and more in need of a strong feminist movement than ever–without stepping back and looking at the wider picture, a picture which included men’s perspectives.
- Men have been far too silent in the gender debate, a silence which has probably been interpreted as men feeling guilty, or at the very least having no good arguments to counter the increased radicalization of feminist theory. This has allowed radical feminists to get more and more government grants and influence, which in turn has given them more resources to come up with ever more radical theories that make men responsible for every conceivable evil. Gender study departments in universities around the world, can now hide behind the respectable façade of higher education and use tax payers’ money to promote the theories of radical feminism.
- Radical feminism absolves women from personal responsibility in their lives. It’s all the fault of the patriarchy, a mythical structure which means that men always get the good deal in life… This is a seductive stance for young women, especially if a university teacher that you respect tells you that this is how the world works. This means that equity feminism and other branches of old school feminism, that emphasize women’s personal responsibility in creating better lives for themselves, have a harder time gaining new adherents.
There are many more factors of course, but these are some of the key points in my opinion. Feel free to add your own points in the comments.
Tags: feminism, gender equality, history
September 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I have come to the conclusion that feminism is based on two biological impulses that both sexes share - the greater reproductive value of women, and the discounting of those members of the opposite sex who don’t come up to your standard of attractiveness.
Because men can spread their seed but women can only reproduce once at a time, a community that loses a large number of males can repopulate itself much more easily than a community that loses a large number of females. So women are reproductively more valuable than men, and women’s wellbeing and safety is much more important than men’s and always has been (this can come at the expense of women’s freedom, which is what feminists object to). When a man has a problem, he is expected to take care of it himself or suffer in silence. When a woman has a problem, it’s everyone’s responsibility to put it right. Feminists have so exploited this that virtually everyone now agrees that a woman who feels uncomfortable at the way a man looks at her is oppressed and all of society must work to stop it happening, but a man who is conscripted to die in a foreign land for a cause that has nothing to do with him has nothing to complain about. Hillary Clinton even said, to virtually no mainstream disagreement, that the “primary victims” of his death are the women in his life who “lose” him.
Both sexes, when choosing a mate, will size up members of the opposite sex and discount those who don’t meet their standards of attractiveness. Women often complain that, once they reach a certain age, they become invisible to men, because one of the strongest male standards of sexual attractiveness is youth. Women select their mates more on social status, and likewise men who are not socially dominant enough are invisible to them. Feminists have carried over their mate-choice criteria into their politics. When they consider the status of men, they only include those men who meet their attractiveness criteria, i.e. men of some status, and so to them, all men are powerful because they don’t count men who are not powerful, who would otherwise bring down the average, as men.
Feminism, the assertion that society cares more about men than women, can only exist because, in fact, society cares more about women’s suffering than men’s.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
You remind me of this quote, which I have treasured for years:
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Proceeding from the idea that women are more reproductively valuable, and that men are to an extent disposable, some brand of feminism makes sense. This is because economics and technology have changed the way that humans interact with the environment. Instead of a populations growth being limited by the number of wombs, it’s now more limited by the amount of surplus resources. There are essentially no clans or tribes; instead competing cultures and countries. And at that, population does not correlate with prosperity.
Technology and societal has allowed women, being, on average physically weaker, to participate as meaningfully as men in the workforce without compromising population growth, increasing productivity. More productive cultures and countries are more dominant. Adopting freedom for both genders to participate as full members of a society is a logical adaption to new historical circumstances.
With responsibilities come rights.
Now, there are obviously biological holdovers. However, as sentient beings, we’ve already minimized a number of aspects that made sense pre-civilization: eating meals rather than constantly, for the most part we don’t nap, don’t wake up at dawn and sleep at dusk, we’ve shifted from physical to sedentary lives.
I’m not saying that there’s some society-optimization hive mind, but on some level we don’t need it because we’re intelligent.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Patrick:
“Feminism, the assertion that society cares more about men than women, can only exist because, in fact, society cares more about women’s suffering than men’s.”
This is profound.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Chris,
What that quote is getting at is that if men have indeed oppressed women for thousands of years, then women must be either stupid or weak or both. Which they aren’t of course… The answer is that men and women have taken on the roles that were needed in order to survive and thrive.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
MER,
What your saying is interesting. Gender roles do adapt to shifting circumstances and as you say, nowadays the dominant cultures are the ones who can have their women participate in the workforce, not the cultures that keep women safe in the home.
However, having a large population is still an advantage (look at China, Russia, the US…), so some of the old factors remain.
September 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“Men have been far too silent in the gender debate, a silence which has probably been interpreted as men feeling guilty,”
And this proceeds from another fundamental failure of feminsm, the failure to identify and repudiate whatever preorogatives the patriarchy did accord women. Instead feminsim grabbed any weapon that was handy, and that often included many prerogatives: the prerogative of being the victim that needed protection (the Damsel in Distress), the prerogative of ordering homelife including relationships (If Momma Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody happy), the maternal prerogative of disapproving of males (You Dirty Little Boy). In fact not only did feminists fail to renounce these, as time went on they grasped them ever more tightly, as well as latching onto to classically patrairchal sexaul stereotypes - woman as more nurturant, more peaceful, more blah blah blah.
Check the discourse around domestic violence, pornography, political power economic power (Pay Gap), fatherhood and child custody, divorce, and other men’s issues, such as health and worksite injuires (the Garbage Gap) and circumcision. Check where these archetypes are active in the discourse.
Ths failure to repudiate these prerogatives might seem self-defeating, but that depends on what feminsim’s real objectives were - certainly they are self-defeating if equality was the objective. i believe you can infer intent from actions. Apparently equality was never the real objective, or perhaps it has just stopped being the real objective.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:02 am
“Men have been far too silent in the gender debate, a silence which has probably been interpreted as men feeling guilty,”
And this proceeds from another fundamental failure of feminsm, the failure to identify and repudiate whatever preorogatives the patriarchy did accord women. Instead feminsim grabbed any weapon that was handy, and that often included many prerogatives: the prerogative of being the victim that needed protection (the Damsel in Distress), the prerogative of ordering homelife including relationships (If Momma Ain’t Happy, Ain’t Nobody happy), the maternal prerogative of disapproving of males (You Dirty Little Boy). In fact not only did feminists fail to renounce these, as time went on they grasped them ever more tightly, as well as latching onto to classically patrairchal sexaul stereotypes - woman as more nurturant, more peaceful, more blah blah blah.
Check the discourse around domestic violence, pornography, political power economic power (Pay Gap), fatherhood and child custody, divorce, and other men’s issues, such as health and worksite injuires (the Garbage Gap) and circumcision. Check where these archetypes are active in the discourse.
Ths failure to repudiate these prerogatives might seem self-defeating, but that depends on what feminsim’s real objectives were - certainly they are self-defeating if equality was the objective. i believe you can infer intent from actions. Apparently equality was never the real objective, or perhaps it has just stopped being the real objective.
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
“nowadays the dominant cultures are the ones who can have their women participate in the workforce, not the cultures that keep women safe in the home.”
However, you will find that in poorer countries the ratio of women in courses for technical professions is higher than in richer countries. Despite some feminist claims (”girls are discouraged from studying technical professions”), not studying such fields is a luxury, no an oppression.
Jim: I think the most widespread patriarchal stereotype embodied by women today is the “mummy as moral authority” stereotype; “stop contradicting mummy, you naughty boy” seems to be one of the most favourite counter-arguments towards men questioning a woman’s view. (I’ve also seen the work of the economic elite described as “boys playing around”, so women are needed to make sure that the outcomes of this playing is rather for the good than the bad - a call for matriarchal authority, once more.)
September 3rd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Thank you, Pelle.
Jim, I entirely agree with you. Feminism was never a campaign for equality. It’s really no more than the extension of traditional female attitudes from the micro-environment of the home and family into the macro-environment of politics and business: “protect me, provide for me and make me happy; stop that, it’s disgusting; you’re useless and you always let me down”. In the old days this strategy was used on an individual basis by abusive wives against their husbands. Now it’s used collectively by feminism, via popular culture, against men en masse.
September 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
(I’ve also seen the work of the economic elite described as “boys playing around”, so women are needed to make sure that the outcomes of this playing is rather for the good than the bad - a call for matriarchal authority, once more.)
This mentality is now coming to full light amid all these studies/articles/reports that try to argue that women are better managers than men in the business, especially financial, realm. A few men at the top screwing up the economy is apparently proof that the entire gender is inferior at financial management.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Danny: To be fair, I’ve seen feminists denouncing this attitude as rubbish. However, they still go on about the “male perspective” which is so one-sided unless there are more women in top positions, which continues to baffle me.
September 3rd, 2009 at 3:38 pm
True but I wonder are they denoucing it because such beliefs put the unfair expetation of assumed competence in the business realm on women (as in assuming that being a woman equals competence) and/or because they recognize it is unfair to judge the entire male gender based on the actions of a few greedy men at the top whose greed caused a lot of people a lot of pain. And I ask this because feminists seem to take a lot of pleasure in wash over the fact that most of the jobs that were lost were lost by men with the pay wage gap. Which BTW have you ever noticed that (whether they intend to or not) they seem to want to cast the illusion that the entire wage gap is caused by sexism?
However, they still go on about the “male perspective” which is so one-sided unless there are more women in top positions, which continues to baffle me.
I’m not sure I’m understanding you here.
September 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@Everyone
Been enjoying all your posts, each person has had something decent to say. Topics been very stimulating.
I’d like to throw 4 things out there and get your opinions
1) “However, once equal rights had been implemented, feminism still assumed that women were far worse off than men”
The battle for feminist equality at this stage has taken a turn to issues that are not top of the agenda or obvious from a Male perspective. This can be seen as ignoring Mens rights, but someone has to look at female-dominated issues, and who better than those with insider perspectives that we don’t get.
A lot of feminist blog posts (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/) focus on how the female body is used as a marketing tool, objectification, sex workers, slightly higher rates of attacks on under 16 females, & LGBT/ethic minority perspectives. These types of topics consistently come up on that site. The legal rights are usually the same across males and females, but entirely-legal social forces are still there making things uneven for everyone. Looking at these social forces and expectations are pretty much the main-stay of current UK feminism.
@Pelle
2)”The answer is that men and women have taken on the roles that were needed in order to survive and thrive.” This can co-habit with denying rights / exploitation such as voting / political power. For example, Current hardline Islamic culture and female rights - can they be justified using historical / situational rhetoric? Are these women ‘weak, stupid’? Are they persuaded to be complicit with this state of affairs by social forces? Or are they isolated and cut off from power that could ensure more equal rights? Or something else? In one way, ‘thriving and surviving’ in that culture is making sure NOT to challenge convention, probably similar to european history, and in doing so deny themselves rights.
@Anyone
3) The idea that feminism is ignoring Male-rights (I dispute, but lets assume its true) should we all rally against it? Are we not doing exactly what they’re doing to us? With male and female gender-roles filling gaps and playing off of each other, these things are inextricably bound up. Doesn’t a great understanding of female roles help us understand male roles, their influence and their context (as well as Vice Versa)?
4)Some of the biggests critics of unequal rights in favour of any minority have been feminists, eg. Celia Kitzinger. This particular social constructionist writer argued that true social progression was not backlashing against something thats descriminatory (ie. pathologising homosexuals pre1970s to pathologising homophobics today) but moving away from the paradigm completely. This has clear implications for violence against women orders, hate crimes and longer male jail sentenses. The best thing I ever read about Male Bisexuality, was an article on Female Bisexuality - There are implications for much of feminist writings that go beyond their chosen topic.
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
“However, you will find that in poorer countries the ratio of women in courses for technical professions is higher than in richer countries.”
That’s interesting, I didn’t know that.
I think in the long run this trend will help these countries by reducing dead weight, as well as giving these families more resources and better education, which in turn will slow population growth.
September 3rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Gilesy:
That depends on how you define “ignoring”. If by that you mean that feminism does’t talk about Male-right because they are talking about other things then I’m fine with them “ignoring” them in that manner. That is just a simple matter of “we acknowledge that but we just aren’t talking about that right now”. If you mean that feminism only talks about male-rights the woman’s perspective (which I see alot) I can go along with it to a point but for the most part nothing wrong with that. If you mean that feminism just flatly pays not attention to male-rights issues (whether intentionally or not) then yes there is a problem because by doing that feminism expects men to become aware of issues that affect women at the cost of acting as if there are no issues that affect men. Examples if you will:
1. Feminists are talking about rape victims and someone mentions the stigma of men hit with false allegations. Understandably it would make sense to inform said person that while that may be an issue that’s not the place to talk about it at that time. They recognize it and acknowledge it, but they are just not talking about it in that particular conversation.
2. Feminists are talking about that line of “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” tshirts but rather than talk about how such things promote sexism and misandry they are talking about how such shirts promote the idea that it is okay for women to commit violence against men because of the sexist assumption that a woman can’t really hurt a man. On the surface I have no problem with that however…
2a. Once the people on the conversation start going into things like claiming that while offensive to men its not really sexist or that the real problem with the shirts isn’t the idea that female against male violence is okay but the idea that women can’t really hurt men there is a problem. They erasing the main targets of the sexism shirts (males) and putting up females as the the true victims.
2b. A litmus test for this would be to wonder if the shirts were of the “girls are stupid throw rocks at them” variety would those same people even consider the idea of saying that the shirts are offensive to males because it is giving them the false idea that it is okay to attack females much less claim that males are the real victims of such shirts. (I’ll bet a blank check they would not be able to say no to this without whining about privilege, know the idea that since some men are at the top living the privielged life then we all have access to that simply by sharing gender with them.)
3. When feminists:
A. Want men to be aware of victims of sexual assault while at the same time shouting down male victims.
B. Don’t want to play Oppression Olympics (the game of claiming who has it worse) but won’t think twice calling a male victim privileged only because he is male but know nothing of his life.
C. Flat statements like “men don’t…”, “men always….”, “men never…”
So which is it?
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
It seems to me that most of you guys have yet to raise your heads above the particular, and look more closely at the overall effects of feminism and the motivations behind governments’ strong support for it.
For example, saying that this particular group of feminists (or that particular individual feminist) is concerned with men’s rights means precious little in the overall scheme of things.
There were probably thousands of good Nazis too.
Perhaps, instead of looking at what self-proclaimed feminists are saying, you should look more closely at what feminism is actually doing.
Indeed, if you do look at what individual ‘feminists’ are saying, they are saying everything. You cannot pin down feminism just by picking up on what some feminist happens to be saying.
Why not look at the results? - such as the prejudicial laws, the university hate campaigns orchestrated by campus feminists. And so on.
I tell you what; take a look at this page on Harrys News …
http://www.harrysnews.com/pgmenissues.htm
… it’s fairly innocuous, isn’t it?
But I had to conduct a strong campaign against Google to get the adverts back after they deemed it to be a page containing “inappropriate content”.
I have also had my sites delisted from Google and have had to fight to get them back.
You guys clearly have no idea just how censorious and intimidating are feminists.
And people still lose their jobs and their career propects just for speaking out against feminist dogma.
For example, fron CNS News …
……………..
Nunavut’s premier has stripped the territory’s justice minister of his duties over a remark that suggests women are partly to blame when they are assaulted during domestic disputes.
Eva Aariak said she has taken over the department from Louis Tapardjuk, who made the comment last week in an email.
“Often, in cases of domestic disputes, both parties share the blame but, according to the Criminal Code, the person who gets physical is charged, even though the other party initiated the conflict,” Tapardjuk wrote.
“Often, the male is charged even though the conflict may have been initiated by the female partner.”
[So he was sacked and made to apologise.]
Tapardjuk also suggested that the slow pace of the criminal justice system is responsible for many young people committing suicide when they face charges. He also said the involvement of social services and police in marital problems contributes to a growing number of divorces.
……..
You guys seem to have no idea of just how impossible it has been to even criticise feminists in the mainstream media, in government, at college or in general.
Take a look at this …
http://www.angryharry.com/esFeministsarenastythings.htm
… or this, written by a well-known domestic violence researcher …
http://www.harrysnews.com/esConcealmentandDistortion.htm
What about all the continual lies and distortions about rape and domestic violence - from the government and from the media?
Feminism is a thoroughly foul ideology, and THOUSANDS of those who put feminism into practice are deceitful, dishonest, nasty and spiteful. And I can assure you that their agenda has nothing to do with ‘equality’.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
@Danny
A lot of great points, the ‘boys are stupid throw rocks at them’ t-shirts and ignoring the misandry element is interesting, had a search for self-identified feminist postings on it - but couldn’t find; commentary must exist so maybe someone could post a link? I could find female commentators, but nothing that said they were feminists.
A while back a Feminist friend of mine posted “gender stereotypes are stupid, throw rocks at them” and something along the lines of taking responsibility for childish ways of dealing with emotions. Which speaks to Pelles point of ‘old school feminism’
I’ve heard a lot of ‘thats so a white, male, middle-class, heterosexist, western view’ as if that somehow invalidates any points (classic ad-hominems) from some feminist speakers. I guess they see it as the paradigm that doesn’t pay attention to alternative viewpoints or something. I find it quite telling, that each of those elements (white, male, heterosexual etc) are percieved as having the majority of power, so it becomes a legitimate target for criticism on those grounds alone. Its a similar way in jokes, any joke vs a minority is oppression, vs the majority ‘comes with the priviledge.’
That particular attitude I find quite distasteful as it belittles serious problems and raises minority ideas above criticism (which no idea should be).
Feminism is a collection of very different viewpoints, theres massive in-fighting about everything, which is why over many issues you get splits and people choose different feminist identies - saying that feminists always do something, can be very similar to “men don’t…”, “men always….”, “men never…” - neithers a good idea in my book.
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Gilsey:
I find it quite telling, that each of those elements (white, male, heterosexual etc) are percieved as having the majority of power, so it becomes a legitimate target for criticism on those grounds alone. Its a similar way in jokes, any joke vs a minority is oppression, vs the majority ‘comes with the priviledge.’
While at the same time critiquing a minority is an act of oppression or something. Maybe that is why some feminists go nuts over the Feminist Critics site, some assumption of gender based superiorty (women are oppressed therefore they cannot be wrong)?
September 4th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Gilesy:
A lot of great points, the ‘boys are stupid throw rocks at them’ t-shirts and ignoring the misandry element is interesting, had a search for self-identified feminist postings on it - but couldn’t find; commentary must exist so maybe someone could post a link? I could find female commentators, but nothing that said they were feminists.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/19/teaching-kids-that-there-is-a-battle-of-the-sexes/comment-page-1/#comment-101861
Check that out.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Well, here is my take on the Boys Are Stupid t shirts…
http://www.angryharry.com/esBoysAreStupid.htm
…
But what I want to get across to all of you is this.
I probably come across as a “green ink nutter”; making wildly exaggerated claims.
But I can assure you that my claims are not wildly exaggerated at all.
I started out as an ‘activist’ basically just wanting to have a good moan about feminism - many aspects of which just irritated me. As the years went by, however, and I began to see more clearly what was going on, I learned just how massive was the dishonesty and the corruption when it came to those (in officialdom, academia and the media) who advocated feminism - with, for example, feminist editors of major women ’s magazines actually COLLUDING together with the SPECIFIC INTENTION of stirring up hatred towards men.
Also, I have a PhD in Psychology - and I used to teach Statistics to postgrads - and so when I ventured into looking at various ‘research papers’ on various feminist issues - such as sex-assault and domestic violence - I could understand them.
And I looked at many of them CLOSELY.
And I can tell you that they are mostly rubbish - politically-corrected rubbish - nearly always twisted in order to demonise and disadvantage men - with definitions fudged, data misrepresented, or absent, or just plain ridiculous.
Furthermore, I have seen highly-respected top-ranking judges lying through their teeth in order to support the feminist agenda e.g. see …
http://www.angryharry.com/esjudges.htm
And what you guys need to wake up to is that those who rise high in the feminist ranks are, usually, the most devious, dishonest, self-serving, malicious fraudsters that you can imagine.
They will say anything, and do anything, that they can get away with in order to bolster the feminist causse and, hence, profit themselves in some way.
And because their agenda is consistent with the New World Order - or, if you prefer, powerful governmental control - these feminists have been promoted worldwide with BILLIONS of tax dollars; e.g. see …
http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm
Furthermore, they know how the game is played.
Support feminism, and you will rise high.
Oppose feminism, and your future will be scuppered.
And so what we have ended up with over the years is a situation wherein those who are prepared to cheat, to lie, etc etc in order to pursue their careers by supporting feminism have reached the top of their trees.
They are now in charge.
Let me give you just one more example.
I sometimes watch Newsnight on the BBC, and over the past few years I have written to them on occasion to complain about bias in their reporting.
For example, I complained - politely - and under a different name - about the fact that they had aired two long pieces concerning female suicides in UK prisons over the past year; even though five times as many MEN commit suicides in prisons.
No reply.
And I have also poilitely complained about other things concerning bias against men.
No reply.
At the last election, the Newsnight presenter read out 7 emails that they had received from the public concerning some issue or other, and I noticed that they ALL came from men.
So I wrote to Newsnight, and asked them why they had not aired the emails of any women.
Guess what?
I got a long apology, and was told that this would not happen again.
I repeat; you guys have no idea of just how entrenched is the notion that feminism must be pursued at all costs, nor any idea of just how corrupt, dishonest and self-serving are those - at the top - who promote it.
Finally, anyone who thinks that feminist-inspired policies are to do with fairness, justice and equality, should look at what happens to men who are merely accused of some kind of assault against a woman.
Things are gradually getting better; but this is only because of the internet and, quite frankly, because of MRA activism via the internet.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:16 am
@Danny
“While at the same time critiquing a minority is an act of oppression or something.”
Theres a lot of critiquing going on within feminism, between feminists, but its a lot easier for them to talk about emotional issues like rape, cultural attitudes to rape, personal experiences with rape etc when no outside force is making them justify every step - why they think you were raped, did you lead it on, were you ambiguous, are you lying for a court payout/sympathy. Or questions irrelevant to personal accounts - prevalence of it, what about false-male convictions etc
They can tackle those questions if they want in their own time. Those are obviously harsh questions pushed into the safest space for them to talk about emotional issues. The Assumption has to be ’shes telling the truth’ etc to create that safe environment, unfortunately that lack of critiquing, while empathetic & needed may colour some perceptions of other men unjustly, ie. ‘if one thinks thats ok from cultural attitudes, why not the next person.’ Hearing accounts of rape are obviously horrid, and it has an effect of making you extra-wary, same way media mass-panic paedo-hysteria hit the UK, emotive stories & no-one let their kids out, despite no increase in abductions.
I think there can be mis-communication (either deliberate or accidental) over issues like rape, when talking about statistics, people can feel like you’re undercutting personal accounts, or saying its not legitimate.
“some assumption of gender based superiorty?”
Theres an element, but I think its more like regular anger, if you want to change so much, and don’t have enough power, people taking that away from you or dismissing your opinion can be extremely frustrating, especially if they are made to justify everything over and over. The ’superiority’ comes in with insider perspectives, they live the life of a woman, experiencing stuff we just don’t, explaining the whole world of being a woman is too much for any conversation, at least with other women they share many common experiences. Imagine justifying male disposability, having no say in whether your partner aborts your child or not, the damage a throw-away slander of rape can do and them just not getting it. Once again, its the same for both sides.
Its kinda circular for everyone - “they’d only undercut my perspective if they didn’t understand what we face”
September 4th, 2009 at 2:36 am
@Danny - thanks for this link
Some really good points on there
at this link - http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/08/19/teaching-kids-that-there-is-a-battle-of-the-sexes/comment-page-1/#comment-101861
RE: “boys are stupid throw rocks at them” t-shirts
“True that the shirts were started up by men but they would not do too well if the women they were marketing to weren’t responsive.”
Its a point I make to feminists all the time about living in a capitalist democracy, feminists don’t speak for everyone cos there are many women who actively enjoy gender-stereotypes - God knows I lived with one.
September 4th, 2009 at 8:20 am
I think the idea that “The idea that feminism is ignoring Male-rights” (Gilesy) is a misguided criticism of feminism. If we demand that feminists pay due attention to men’s issues, we are accepting their authority to speak for us on gender issues - allowing women, as Jim says “the maternal prerogative of disapproving of males”. Instead, we should be asking why, when it comes to discussion of gender issues, the media and society in general think feminism is the last and only word on the subject.
Feminists are not our mothers, and we do not need to seek their approval or ask them to act on our behalf. They are our equals, and we need to establish the ability to argue with and against them as equals, not as suppliants.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Danny: About the point you were not sure you understood:
Many feminists assume that the perspective of the elite is one-sided unless there are more women up there, because without women, the only perspective is the “male perspective”.
What baffles me is: How can you (correctly) denounce the notion that women managers would act completely different from the way male managers do, and yet embrace the idea of one “male perspective” and one “female perspective”?
September 4th, 2009 at 11:39 am
“Feminists are not our mothers, and we do not need to seek their approval or ask them to act on our behalf. They are our equals, and we need to establish the ability to argue with and against them as equals, not as suppliants.”
Spot-on again, Patrick.
September 4th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Gilesy:
“Current hardline Islamic culture and female rights - can they be justified using historical / situational rhetoric? Are these women ‘weak, stupid’? Are they persuaded to be complicit with this state of affairs by social forces? Or are they isolated and cut off from power that could ensure more equal rights? Or something else?”
Traditional islamic culture has pros and cons for both sexes. The question is not really whether a traditional culture can be justified or not, it’s more of a question of traditional gender roles arising because they make sense at a certain stage of techno-economic development.
The women are neither weak nor stupid. Just like the men, they are accepting the role that society needs them to play, a role which will maximize their own chance of surviving and passing on their genes.
September 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
EW:
Actually with the way some act its “the male perspective” and rather than the “male perspective” difference being that the former implies that those few elite joes at the top somehow represent the entire gender (again implying that due to sharing gender with them all men somehow have access to the top).
September 4th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
“The battle for feminist equality at this stage has taken a turn to issues that are not top of the agenda or obvious from a Male perspective. This can be seen as ignoring Mens rights, ”
Gilesy, as others have pointed out, this is not an accurate characterization of the criticism.
One aspect of the criticism is that feminism dishonestly labels issues as women’s issues, and arrogates to itslef the perogative of pronouncing on those issues, which are just as men’s issues as women’s issues. Rape is obviously one of these, and so is abortion, other aspects of parenting, and many more.
The disingenuous claim that feminism is the cure to gender role issues and thus serves men’s interests is not the issue here. The bottom line is that feminists have shown time after tiem after time that they are inimical to men’s interests. It would be wonderful if they would ignore men and men’s issues.
They just need to but out of discussions in circumcision - it’s our dicks, not theirs - and rape - when they start getting lynched and sent to prison for false rape accusations they will begin to have something to say - and abortion - it’s about children, not their stank bodies - and fatherhood - they haven’t a CLUE - we would be satisified with their inviolvement in the debate.
December 26th, 2009 at 1:23 am
Well, I”m not a very educated person, but you don’t have to be to know that feminism is about women gaining supremacy and control by basically crying victim and demonising men. It’s the only hate speech that is institutionalized and gets billions in government money.
I’ve been a victim of feminism most of my life, from when my dad was kicked out when I was five, to when he was forced to take responsibility financially for my sister who is not his, to when my stepfather was booted later on, and all along as my sister was treated as princess while myself and brother were treated as less then.
Then came my marriages. Every women I’ve lived with has either hit me, or thrown things at me. I’ve never done a physical thing against any women in my life but all I hear about is the voilence against women, which now even included so called financial voilence, which is so loosely and broadly defined that the mere act of limiting to any degree your wife’s access to your money or credit cards is financial abuse…..the act steal contains many references to a women’s right to financial independence though. So how can a man have financial independence………it’s actually impossible if he lives with a women…..because you’re no longer entitled to have any control of your own money…and that is the legal position……..it’s the law here in OZ. So now I can be thrown out of my house because I don’t give her a credit card with unlimited limit…….and don’t ask what she spent it all on either….that is financial abuse……just get that god damned limit increased whenever she max it out………..cause limiting her is financial abuse. Financial independence is something you obtain by earning your own money…….qualifying for your own credit cards……and “SAVING”………..not spending other peoples money with no responsibility………….no matter……….women make the law based on what they emotionally want the situation to be……not reality………..moral considerations.
My experience of feminism is that it has proved that their should have been total rejection of women’s right to vote. What future can society have when half the population votes on selfish……emotional reasons…..ignores reality………..and a good deal of the other half go along with them in the hope that they might get a blow job or two before civilisation collapses.
Reality………women were made to nurture children………..men were made to look after women so they can do that……….since men are providing the means for womens and childrens lives to be possible……..they get to run things…………thats how it should be. Do any of you women think your not totally dependant on men………..think your independant……..really…….where do all the metals come from for everything you have made of any kind of metal…..where do the buildings come from that you live in…….work in……etc…….how would you go anywhere without the roads…….footpaths……plains………..trains. Think you provide your family with food do you………..did you grow it…….transport it…..did you raise those animals……….where do you think the electricity and gas and fuel comes from……..men invented and discovered everything……and continue to do so………every life on this planet is totally dependent on the work of men to sustain it……..and we can do our work without womens presence and without any service provided by you……you can’t do anything without us…….because you wouldn’t even have pencils and paper to write you stupid man hating theories down without men providing them for you……….the only thing you can do that men can’t do…….is have babies…….thats it girls………..you are nothing but a way for men to make more men……….thats all you are……….you are nothing else………and never have been anything else…….and never will be anything else. You will always be totally dependent on men providing you with every essential for life…….you can not escape that fact…………and for the last 50 years…….you have been doing a lot of biting the hand that feeds you…….I suspect your going to find a lot less hands willing to feed you for that……..eventually none.
August 25th, 2011 at 5:35 am
[...] its proliferation really does promote gender equality. As Pelle Billing writes in his article, “Where Did Feminism Go Wrong?”: “There was a lack of clarity from the start of the feminist movement. Was it a movement for [...]