Do feminist like men?

Post Reply New Topic

Her accusation was directed at male culture as a whole. I gave an example of a high-ranking patriarch doing the exact opposite. Would you like more?



Patton slapped two men in the middle of war that killed 50 million. (People were eaten by sharks, burned alive and buried under rubble to die of dehydration.) And when word got out, the very patriarchy* that you want people to be scared of (a) demanded that he apologize, and (b) threatened to fire him - in the middle of that globe-scorching war.

(*Members of Congress and General Eisenhower)

If you're suggesting that Patton was so out-of-line that we should look on him with condescension, then I suggest that the matriarchs get their own ship in order first. They still use prone restraints in special ed. programs. Those are (a) more painful and (b) infinitely more likely to cause injury than what Patton did. Some of those kids are trying to flee, not fight, and have such bad home environments that running away would be justified.

If a female teacher can say "We have RULES, dammit!" and kill a non-violent kid to avoid doing more paperwork, then a general in a war should be able to use the same argument.

How do you explain common feminist attitudes towards domestic violence?
Which is very much a "flagship issue" amongst so called "radical feminists".

i am a feminist happily married to a male feminist. when i was in med school, some of the men told the women in the class to go home and bear children. that is what i'm against and the type of guy i don't like. i had just as much right to be a doc as they did. i also have a right to equal pay for equal work. one doc called me a castrating female for sympathizing with a female patient who was depressed because her husband wouldn't let her pursue her passion for art. i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis.

I am a very strong feminist, and I love men. I understand men better than women, so consequently, most of my closest friends are cis straight males. I may not always agree with them, but life would be boring if we all agreed, right?

I try to avoid sexist terms toward my husband as well because I want to encourage him to be open about his feelings and to feel he can come to me to listen when he's upset the same way I can to him. We try to split our chores evenly and make as many financial decisions as possible together without steamrolling the other. For example, I do the laundry and am responsible for recycling while he takes out the trash and sprays herbicide and insecticide.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I try to judge people based on their compassion for others and kindness. If another person, be they male or female, is mean or bullies others, I won't give them any more time than I have to. For example, I've read most of The Feminine Mystique, which is considered one of the most important books of the time, and while I agree with Friedan that women should be encouraged to be more than just mothers and housewives, I find a lot of the things she had to say about the homosexual community to be abhorrent and immediately put down her book. As a result, I will not buy anything she has written.

Well, that's just it. I don't think we CAN define what real feminism is or what real feminists are. It's not that anyone is rebranding themselves. It's more of a no-true-Scotsman approach. If you talk about the negative aspects of feminism or specific militant, foaming-at-the-mouth man-haters, a feminist is going to ask who these people are and where they hang out; and they'll deny, perhaps truthfully, ever meeting women like this. If you actually do drop famous names, they'll say they never heard of those women. Anyone who claims to follow feminism closely, if she's being honest, has to at least admit to a superficial awareness of these particular loudmouths. For me, a marginally good test for intellectual honesty is mentioning Valerie Solanas. If she claims she follows feminism closely and she's never heard of Valerie Solanas, she is either woefully ignorant or she is lying.

Now, here is where it gets tricky, because there is a third alternative: She doesn't consider Valerie Solanas a "true feminist." Because a true feminist would never write or say the kinds of things Valerie Solanas wrote and said. TRUE feminists are merely pro-women, not anti-men. So seething, rabid, man-hating, self-loathing ragers simply aren't feminists at all. As far as "true feminists" are concerned, people like her don't even exist.

Of course, for the contemporary feminist, one could just make the claim that Solanas is old news, so why is she even relevant? OK…fair enough. So we don't pay attention to loudmouths and maybe we only wake up when someone actually DOES something offensive. Fine. So…ever heard of Mireille Miller-Young? The porn professor? No? She's the one who attacked a female child for expressing her right to peaceful protest/free speech. So she doesn't just hate men…she hates other women and children, too (ironic, because she was pregnant at the time of the attack). However, the wagon circlers (the feminist wagon, not the Miller-Young wagon) will say a) She's not a "true feminist," b) she was pregnant and perhaps hormonal (not the best PC response, but whatever), or c) she's black and dealing with the "cultural legacy of slavery" (I didn't make this last one up, btw).

To summarize: If feminism is all about equality for women AS WELL AS men, people like Solanas, Miller-Young, and several more I'm just not taking the time to dredge up right now aren't even supposed to exist. Why do they exist? And are they even feminists? How do you define feminists/feminism?

If you go by the loudest messages being preached wrt feminists/feminism, feminism makes certain claims about equality for women in cooperation with men. But in practice, it's not that simple. It actually requires men to give up ambitious drive and put women on a pedestal without regard for actual merit. It's affirmative action. I'm all about fighting sexism in the workplace. I'm all about opening up opportunities for women IF those opportunities actually were denied women on the basis of their sex. Women DO still get fired for having babies, which in my opinion is one of the most appalling realities of our post-feminist working world. Things like that anger me, and I know it happens because I'm close to someone who lost not one but TWO jobs immediately after childbirth. So I'm not denying that feminists and even some man-haters have a point. What disturbs me the most is that what many of these are going for is the elevation of women at the EXPENSE of men, returning injustice for injustice.

And it is THIS that embodies the public face of feminism. It may not be accurate, but that is how it is perceived, and for a lot of people perception defines reality.

Post-feminism is going to either ignore the seethers or write them out of the "feminist" rubric. Post-feminists, which formerly might have been called 4th/5th/Xth-wave feminists, are going to reject the label entirely simply because this public face of feminism doesn't even remotely describe what they are--which are really moderate feminists who want to be consistent with the SPIRIT of feminism if not their actions.

Just based on this post alone, I'd say you and I think a lot alike. I also appreciate your use of the word "feminazi." It very succinctly summarizes the type of, I dunno, überfeminist (?) I've spent paragraphs on of nothing more than adjectives. The term "feminazi" coming from me wouldn't be any different than if I'd said the "n-word," whereas had my skin color been significantly darker it would be expected to be a staple of everyday speech. I don't let it stop me, but I don't think that makes me anti-feminist.

I do hate that you had that experience. As a man, I have trouble understanding WHY men do that in the world we live in now. I don't agree with frivolous lawsuits, I don't agree with acting with complete disregard or lack of respect for others. I do think it has become too easy to play the "gender card," or whatever you want to call it. But what you described is blatant sexism and harassment. There is absolutely no call for that kind of intolerable behavior. As hard as you have to work, whether you're a man or a woman, to even get into med school, that should be grounds for dismissal.

My auntie who did a doctorate in women's studies (see: feminist) is married.

She's scared when her husband is away fishing.

(I'm pretty sure she likes men.)

" i think there is more feminist bashing than actual feminazis." Yep.

I agree with this completely. I also studied a "male program" in university (in fact at the time, I was the only female in the program- but this was over 20 years ago) and I experienced much of the same. I don't hate men- I hate being treated poorly for no reason (by anyone).

Laci Green's point was that patriarchy is harmful to men as well as women, she's not bashing "male culture". I don't understand, why would you want to defend aspects of society that are bad and harmful instead of seeing society develop and improve?



You've missed the point. I brought up those slapping incidents simply because you brought up general Patton as an example but my main point actually had nothing to do specifically with General Patton. If you look up the background reasons why those slapping incidents occurred, you'll find that it was because General Patton did not believe that shell shock (now recognised to be a form of post-traumatic stress disorder) was a real condition. If you dig deeper, you'll also find that this also comes from a background of the US military believing that symptoms of shell shock were indications of cowardice rather than a real condition and that General Patton was far from the first general to believe that such patients were malingerers. This idea that symptoms of shell shock were acts of cowardice and attempts to avoid combat duty can also be traced back to male gender stereotypes of men being brave and the stronger sex which actually proves Laci Greens point and that's why I brought it up.

Girl power?

No, this is not girl power. This is a person being wholly in the wrong. Girl power would be a woman telling the cheating boyfriend off for what he did and breaking it off with him with no violence. I would be just as disgusted if a man was caught beating a woman in a similar fashion.

Because her point is wrong. Because she did take a broad swipe at male culture without bothering to understand it. Let's go over her video:

She says that men face "pressure to be one of the guys, to make 'harmless' jabs at each-other meant to establish dominance." If she's right, I've somehow missed it entirely. I first encountered that type of banter at one of the least hierarchal workplaces that I've ever worked at. What stood out was that the guys wouldn't give me a hard time if I was already having a rough day (in stark contrast to female-run public schools, where they'd single you out as an easy target). It didn't change the level of professional respect between the people doing it.

She says that we're under pressure "to prove your manhood by having lots of sex; learning to see women as sex objects, and struggling to have meaningful relationships with them." Most American men don't have lots of sex. They usually have less sex than women, and the ones who give the most (like married fathers) get the least in return. Is that how she defines a "meaningful relationship?"

"...to pursue physically-demanding, dangerous or even violent jobs." One of the safest working cultures that I've ever been a part of was also the most male-dominated. There were some mildly dangerous tasks, but the level of professionalism among the staff was outstanding. Everybody knew what to do, and you could always ask one of the other guys for help. The only co-worker who ever pressured me to do something stupid (a case of first-day hazing) was a woman at a non-profit at which half of the management was female.

"...pressure to be the protector in a relationship, never the protected." Yes, there's lots of pressure. No, it's not from other men. I used to be easy-going about this, but it just attracted women who were insecure around men and looking for someone non-threatening, or women who wanted an emotional pick-me-up before they went off to get pounded by stereotypical alphas. Not worth it.

"...pressure to be the leader, and to always have the answers." I know a lot of women who want men to admit that we don't have all the answers, but they still believe in a magic book or institution that has them. How is it good for guys to be dumped in favor of a different fantasy? Can't I at least be passed over for realism?



1: How is it pro-male to focus on two men and not the 160,000 who were still being shot at in Sicily?

2: Your own links show that Patton and Gen. Lucas were concerned about the effect on the morale and safety of the other soldiers. Should they not have been?

3: How is feminism the answer? Women hold plenty of less-than-modern views.

4: You should read up on the associated history. Some of the same divisions that fought in Sicily (the US 82nd and 101st Airborne and Britain's XXX Corps) had to go through hell all over again in Normandy, Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge in part because the Allied invasion of Italy stalled.

5: Almost everybody will have some symptoms of shell-shock in their first battle (and probably following ones, too). Where do you draw the line? How do you make sure that it's done fairly?

Is she a feminist? Would feminists look up to her and encourage more domestic violence against men? Maybe he cheated on her because she was already violent with him and he was unsatisfied with the way she treats him it goes both ways sometimes people want to escape. I mean if she was violent with him I wouldn't blame him for cheating on her same with if a man was violent with a woman, I wouldn't blame her for cheating on him either, although I do not condone cheating because it ruins relationships and breaks hearts, I would look the other way in those abusive circumstances!

What are feminists, do they (still) exist ? I don't know any feminists and wouldn't consider myself as one.
There is the Femen bunch who are some foreign propaganda agents and still paid for by the french government, and rather of rightwing/anti-islamist recuperation. As is strangely everything these days!(When the low tax paying billionaires hook up with the no tax paying religions) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femen#Crit ... ntroverses & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN#Criticism

I would say that no, she isn't, and I would hope that other feminists would not look up to her. This woman is no more a role model than a man who beats a woman is. Domestic violence, be it created by a man or a woman, is a huge problem and should never be condoned under any circumstances. I wouldn't blame him for cheating if she was violent with him either, but I don't condone cheating at the same time. He did right by not hitting back and letting the authorities take care of her because as my mom used to say, two wrongs never make a right.