Don't you hate when SHORT women require TALL men???

[Woggle]

Men's resentment against feminism does not mean that we hate women. Even though feminism in and of itself is not about manhating many men think that feminists us because we have a penis and it is perfectly normal to be against something you believe is against you.

[zengirl]

I actually do see truth here. Am I the only one?

 

No, I've definitely seen all of those on LS, though only a few IRL. It's an interesting summary of some of the LS perspectives I've never understood. I did think the "conspiring with their penis" one was absolutely ridiculous, though it seems to echo some of the more ridiculous troll threads here where male posters are saying sex is like oxygen and women should just put out etc. The ones that seem most true in things that pop up on LS are (5) deserve a hot girl, (4) decoration, and (2) stolen power.

 

Men's resentment against feminism does not mean that we hate women. Even though feminism in and of itself is not about manhating many men think that feminists us because we have a penis and it is perfectly normal to be against something you believe is against you.

 

Trying to rebrand the word "feminism" as something bad or anti-male is part of the problem, Woggle. It's like saying, "I don't hate blacks -- it just sucks that they achieved civil rights." Which isn't something I think you'd say or even something I think you mean to say about women but hating feminism feeds into that. I don't know if it implies a hatred of women (that seems far to me) but it does a lot to hinder the great strides women have made for themselves. Feminists ranged from mild to extreme, but the primary goal of feminism can never be described as anti-male (at times it may have felt that way to males who had to give a share in their power).

 

Most men I know, luckily, do not resent feminism or my ability or desire to live my life however I please. Nor do they think the world is locked in a grand gender war. I think it is only a small minority that do, and they probably share at least some of the beliefs in that article.

[serial muse]

Where did I say I was leaving the thread? I refused to talk about the article further with a specific poster, any reasonable reader without your trademark animus can see that intent.

 

My so-called "animus" is specifically directed at your trademark hypocrisy.

 

For example, telling people to "stop lying" could be considered your trademark animus.

 

Also,

 

Anyone who reads these forums, regardless of how they feel about what I post, knows that I regularly bow out of discussions or even entire threads once I've had my say. That's not the only reason I am doing so now, but suffices.

 

I suppose that leaves you plenty of wiggle room. You can make sweeping statements about how you don't need to have the last word and are so above the fray...as long as you've "had your say." Which apparently never ends. I think we can safely conclude that no, you don't "bow out" at all.

 

"Stop lying" would have been against the guidelines of LS, back in the pre-wild west days. But, since it's now allowed, I am apparently free to turn it back on you. Because you won't (stop lying).

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

 

Trying to rebrand the word "feminism" as something bad or anti-male is part of the problem, Woggle. It's like saying, "I don't hate blacks -- it just sucks that they achieved civil rights." Which isn't something I think you'd say or even something I think you mean to say about women but hating feminism feeds into that. I don't know if it implies a hatred of women (that seems far to me) but it does a lot to hinder the great strides women have made for themselves. Feminists ranged from mild to extreme, but the primary goal of feminism can never be described as anti-male (at times it may have felt that way to males who had to give a share in their power).

 

Most men I know, luckily, do not resent feminism or my ability or desire to live my life however I please. Nor do they think the world is locked in a grand gender war. I think it is only a small minority that do, and they probably share at least some of the beliefs in that article.

 

As far as I know, no one who posts on LS (save for the obvious trolls) actually resents feminism to the degree where they believe a woman's right to live her life as she pleases ought to be hindered. I'm not against feminism at all if by feminist you mean "affording full Constitutional rights to every US citizen regardless of their sex."

 

What I DO resent, however, is the feminist tendency to portray, whether intentionally or not, life as a gender war. I've met enough feminists and am friends with enough of them on Facebook to know that the doctrine has a great tendency to make women see men as their enemy, as people to be feared, and as a group that power must be wrested away from. I see enough of what they post and write about to know that this is the case. I resent the emphasis feminism has created on women's health issues and women's risks of becoming crime victims at the expense of coverage of equally serious male issues in the mainstream media. I resent the insanely broad definition that is now ascribed to the word "misogyny." I resent the false portrayal of concepts like "glass ceilings" that are the result of inherently biased/poorly-controlled studies. Lastly, I resent the notion promoted by modern feminism that women as a whole are still denied the opportunity to succeed in whatever career/life path they want to pursue. I grew up in a middle-class neighborhood and trust me, if the women I grew up with are doing something other than what they dreamed of, it has precious little to do with their gender. I've volunteered with enough unfortunate PEOPLE to know what lack of opportunity REALLY means.

 

You don't achieve true equality by constantly emphasizing a group identity and painting that group as a perpetual victim class.

[reallyhotguy]

...the doctrine has a great tendency to make women see men as their enemy, as people to be feared, and as a group that power must be wrested away from.

 

...

 

I've volunteered with enough unfortunate PEOPLE to know what lack of opportunity REALLY means.

 

You don't achieve true equality by constantly emphasizing a group identity and painting that group as a perpetual victim class.

 

I see that a lot of people seem to view "feminism" this way, and I wonder, did these people ever take a feminism 101 class? Because it's not even close to true.

 

Feminism is a body of academic study. That's it. People make arguments surrounding issues of gender which then get raked over the coals of other people's counter-arguments, just like in any other field of study. Feminism has inspired forms of protest, most notably 40ish years ago. But there is a difference between feminism as a motivation for political action, and feminism proper, a field in academia.

 

(Again, this is feminism 101 stuff, so I'm sure you know it, BigQuestion, and are just noting how some would-be feminists on your Facebook page do not know it, having themselves never studied feminism 101.)

 

Words like "doctrine" are often ascribed to feminism, and that is absolutely laughable. Doctrine is a word associated with religion or government. Feminism is just about the last place you'd expect to find doctrine, being itself founded on unconventional critical thought.

 

As to the group thing -- let's consider that for a moment. Let's suppose you and I both live in the United States as citizens. Considered as a group: we, as Americans, are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in 2 wars in the Middle East, both foreign populations and our own, as well the world's largest prison population, relative and actual. As a group, we are frightening people. But does this fact stop us, as individuals, from being friendly with other Americans, or other nationals being friendly with us? Not that I've experienced, anyway.

 

This same relationship is played out between criticisms of "patriarchy" within feminism. There are collective issues, which may or may not play out on the individual level, that should be discussed. But would that necessarily mean that people who talk about issues involving men automatically hate those men? For instance, would being critical of Barack Obama automatically mean that you hate blacks, or Democrats, or X? Does being critical of the American government automatically mean you hate democracy, or the Constitution? This is an anti-intellectual straw man argument that is meant to dissuade people from embracing innovation in society, and it should be considered nearly offensive to any sharp thinker.

 

What you say at the end, about feminism and its relationship to other issues, reminds me of a few topics within feminism. You may recall that women's rights activism in the 60s was occurring around the same time as "civil" rights activism. There was controversy between these two groups at this time. Black women, who were facing the short ends of both sticks, were marginalized within these movements, as they felt they had to pick a side; the voices were either of "white women", or "black men". This is criticized today as a failure of rights activists at that time, to emphasize some problems over others; this criticism is coming mainly from other feminists. The prevailing idea today is that no problem should be left to fester, whether it be the professional American woman's wage gap, the options available to the American single mother under the poverty line, or the consequences of imposed western ideals on working families in developing nations.

 

Altogether I have a hard time understand backlash to feminism, when it seems to me to be an incredibly rational, reasonable, and helpful force in our society. (Ironically, feminism would be a logical best place to start learning about that backlash.)

[Els]

What I DO resent, however, is the feminist tendency to portray, whether intentionally or not, life as a gender war.

 

I haven't met anyone IRL who sees life that way, but on LS, I really don't think it is the feminists who portray life as a gender war, for the most part. The posters with the most inflammatory gender comments and who have the largest ratio of posts based on such, tend to be the ones who are against feminism, rather than for it.

[TheBigQuestion]

I see that a lot of people seem to view "feminism" this way, and I wonder, did these people ever take a feminism 101 class? Because it's not even close to true.

 

Feminism is a body of academic study. That's it. People make arguments surrounding issues of gender which then get raked over the coals of other people's counter-arguments, just like in any other field of study. Feminism has inspired forms of protest, most notably 40ish years ago. But there is a difference between feminism as a motivation for political action, and feminism proper, a field in academia.

 

(Again, this is feminism 101 stuff, so I'm sure you know it, BigQuestion, and are just noting how some would-be feminists on your Facebook page do not know it, having themselves never studied feminism 101.)

 

Words like "doctrine" are often ascribed to feminism, and that is absolutely laughable. Doctrine is a word associated with religion or government. Feminism is just about the last place you'd expect to find doctrine, being itself founded on unconventional critical thought.

 

As to the group thing -- let's consider that for a moment. Let's suppose you and I both live in the United States as citizens. Considered as a group: we, as Americans, are responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in 2 wars in the Middle East, both foreign populations and our own, as well the world's largest prison population, relative and actual. As a group, we are frightening people. But does this fact stop us, as individuals, from being friendly with other Americans, or other nationals being friendly with us? Not that I've experienced, anyway.

 

This same relationship is played out between criticisms of "patriarchy" within feminism. There are collective issues, which may or may not play out on the individual level, that should be discussed. But would that necessarily mean that people who talk about issues involving men automatically hate those men? For instance, would being critical of Barack Obama automatically mean that you hate blacks, or Democrats, or X? Does being critical of the American government automatically mean you hate democracy, or the Constitution? This is an anti-intellectual straw man argument that is meant to dissuade people from embracing innovation in society, and it should be considered nearly offensive to any sharp thinker.

 

What you say at the end, about feminism and its relationship to other issues, reminds me of a few topics within feminism. You may recall that women's rights activism in the 60s was occurring around the same time as "civil" rights activism. There was controversy between these two groups at this time. Black women, who were facing the short ends of both sticks, were marginalized within these movements, as they felt they had to pick a side; the voices were either of "white women", or "black men". This is criticized today as a failure of rights activists at that time, to emphasize some problems over others; this criticism is coming mainly from other feminists. The prevailing idea today is that no problem should be left to fester, whether it be the professional American woman's wage gap, the options available to the American single mother under the poverty line, or the consequences of imposed western ideals on working families in developing nations.

 

Altogether I have a hard time understand backlash to feminism, when it seems to me to be an incredibly rational, reasonable, and helpful force in our society. (Ironically, feminism would be a logical best place to start learning about that backlash.)

 

Actually, most of the people I know who do the sorts of things I've pointed out DO have a familiarity with feminism as an academic course of study. Yes, feminism is an academic discipline, but there are numerous, sometimes conflicting doctrines within feminism. Feminism and all of its off-shoots and subvariants are philosophical schools of thought. All philosophical schools of thought have at least a few foundational principles. Those principles can rightfully be called "doctrines" as it's defined in any dictionary. It's not meant to be an incendiary word regardless of how much you want to make it seem that way. The Church does not have a monopoly on that word, and at the end of the day you're just pointing out a minor semantic controversy.

 

Please point out where I said anything about "hate." Although I'm sure some feminists are flat out misandrists, I never said that feminism necessarily breeds misandry. Nor did I ever deny that there are collective issues that may or may not play out at the individual level.

 

I also noticed that you did not try to dispute many of the individual points I made.

[samsungxoxo]

but i don't like girls that are close to my height (heels would put them taller).[/b] so basically i'm already picking from say half of the girls (5'5 and under). then i see so many of these shorter girls, on dating sites, say they need a tall man.

So if you're already rejecting girls closer to your height, why can't short girls have a height preference too?

That's how one of my female friend was like too. She is only 5'1 but one of her ex bf was like 6'4 I think. Don't know why she's always going after buildings but she still does.

 

It was different in my case: My ex bf was only 1/2 inch taller (5'7 1/2) and it wasn't an issue to us. The reason I broke it off years later was because of a personality flaw... totally unrelated to height.

 

I was on the other end of the spectrum: from what I noticed men are demanding in height too. I used to have a middle school crush on a guy about 4 inches shorter than me. Two years later we were by then in high school and he was growing slowly but was still an inch shorter. Anyways he didn't liked me back but rather a 4'11' untalented, skinny cheerleader.

 

End: The main deal-breaker in a man would as you mentioned in your thread an insecurity thing otherwise I can careless if he's inches shorter. But no personality and self-esteem issues no thanks.

Edited March 28, 2012 by samsungxoxo

[TheBigQuestion]

I haven't met anyone IRL who sees life that way, but on LS, I really don't think it is the feminists who portray life as a gender war, for the most part. The posters with the most inflammatory gender comments and who have the largest ratio of posts based on such, tend to be the ones who are against feminism, rather than for it.

 

"War" perhaps wasn't the best term to use. But still, where is the logic in trying to achieve equality and unity by either exaggerating or flat out fabricating inequalities?

[zengirl]

As far as I know, no one who posts on LS (save for the obvious trolls) actually resents feminism to the degree where they believe a woman's right to live her life as she pleases ought to be hindered. I'm not against feminism at all if by feminist you mean "affording full Constitutional rights to every US citizen regardless of their sex."

 

That's pretty much what it DOES mean. And insinuating it means anything else is hindering that philosophy and kind of offensive was my point. I'm not sure what people really resent feminism for -- there are a handful of posters (you are not among them and neither is Woggle, who I was responding to) who are sincere and I do wonder sometimes if they truly wish they lived in the "good old days" before the important civil rights changes of the 60s (for women and minorities). Like a poster who continually equates the feminist movement with communism in an incendiary way. But I don't honestly know what is believed or not believed.

 

But then:

 

What I DO resent, however, is the feminist tendency to portray, whether intentionally or not, life as a gender war. I've met enough feminists and am friends with enough of them on Facebook to know that the doctrine has a great tendency to make women see men as their enemy, as people to be feared, and as a group that power must be wrested away from.

 

Saying this essentially negates the former thing you've said and makes me wonder if I was wrong in not assessing you as one of those people! This is fairly ignorant to say that feminism made women see men as the enemy. Instead, I would say that feminism has actually allowed men and women to see each other as whole people and that we need to further work on unraveling gender roles and expectations.

 

I resent the insanely broad definition that is now ascribed to the word "misogyny."

 

Which is what?

 

Lastly, I resent the notion promoted by modern feminism that women as a whole are still denied the opportunity to succeed in whatever career/life path they want to pursue.

 

I do not think that is the notion presented at the moment, TBH. I think there are still fields and places where women could make greater strides and trouble spots in education and enterprise to be aware of (I've worked in a "boy's club" type atmosphere that was hostile towards me, and I thought that was just "how it had to be" and there was no changing it -- it was one of the reasons I changed fields instead -- which suggests to me there's still some more improvement to be had). I think there are also strides we could make for men and understanding male gender, educating boys, and allowing men to feel comfortable in roles previously restricted to females (like being Stay-at-Home Dads). I think the notion of modern feminism is actually very much about exploring the vast and complex nature of gender, including transgendered and homosexual populations, and exploring real discussions of sexuality, gender, and life. In short, I think your representation of modern feminism is truly false.

 

You don't achieve true equality by constantly emphasizing a group identity and painting that group as a perpetual victim class.

 

I do not think this is what feminism does in the present. Yes, it requires us to refer to, explore, and understand that in the past (and with certain environments and societies still today) that women were subjugated. I do not believe women, in America and most Western countries, are subjugated today and would never claim that they are.

 

Still, statistics show that women have not achieved full social equality to men (and men not to women in other ways) in many ways, based on how people view certain environments and behaviors. Those are important discussions to have continuously, though I agree that a "victim mentality" helps no one. Neither does denying that there were injustices in our past that we corrected and want to keep and that we could perhaps do better, for everyone, as we move forward.

 

reallyhotguy makes some important points about feminist philosophy that I don't feel a need to reiterate because he left them well-said.

 

tl;dr: I do think that making "feminist" a dirty word is a tad misogynistic and that trying to re-define feminism as being anti-male is creating needless animosity and feeding into the "gender war" (if there still is one) you're so mad about.

[reallyhotguy]

I also noticed that you did not try to dispute many of the individual points I made.

 

You'll have to excuse me; I saw those as claims in a speech, not points of an argument. They're by-and-large unsubstantiated in your post (perhaps we could call them "complaints"?), and they're also expanded in your post from a basis statement that reveals fundamental misconceptions of feminism (e.g. as a "doctrine"), which I addressed.

 

I'd be happy to talk about it though; is there anything in particular you'd like to discuss?

[SteveC80]

It works both ways while at 6'3 i have no height issue i sometimes felt women were with me just because of my height, mentioned it as the first thing about me and went on and on about it as if its what defined me

 

I did find it odd how a lot of women i know not only find short men unattractive but have a almost disdain for them,its like theyre mere presence thretaens some womens femininity in their crazy mind

 

So dont worry short dudes women are bat**** crazy if its any consolation in your struggles:D

[TheBigQuestion]

That's pretty much what it DOES mean. And insinuating it means anything else is hindering that philosophy and kind of offensive was my point. I'm not sure what people really resent feminism for -- there are a handful of posters (you are not among them and neither is Woggle, who I was responding to) who are sincere and I do wonder sometimes if they truly wish they lived in the "good old days" before the important civil rights changes of the 60s (for women and minorities). Like a poster who continually equates the feminist movement with communism in an incendiary way. But I don't honestly know what is believed or not believed.

 

But then:

 

 

 

Saying this essentially negates the former thing you've said and makes me wonder if I was wrong in not assessing you as one of those people! This is fairly ignorant to say that feminism made women see men as the enemy. Instead, I would say that feminism has actually allowed men and women to see each other as whole people and that we need to further work on unraveling gender roles and expectations.

 

 

 

Which is what?

 

 

 

I do not think that is the notion presented at the moment, TBH. I think there are still fields and places where women could make greater strides and trouble spots in education and enterprise to be aware of (I've worked in a "boy's club" type atmosphere that was hostile towards me, and I thought that was just "how it had to be" and there was no changing it -- it was one of the reasons I changed fields instead -- which suggests to me there's still some more improvement to be had). I think there are also strides we could make for men and understanding male gender, educating boys, and allowing men to feel comfortable in roles previously restricted to females (like being Stay-at-Home Dads). I think the notion of modern feminism is actually very much about exploring the vast and complex nature of gender, including transgendered and homosexual populations, and exploring real discussions of sexuality, gender, and life. In short, I think your representation of modern feminism is truly false.

 

 

 

I do not think this is what feminism does in the present. Yes, it requires us to refer to, explore, and understand that in the past (and with certain environments and societies still today) that women were subjugated. I do not believe women, in America and most Western countries, are subjugated today and would never claim that they are.

 

Still, statistics show that women have not achieved full social equality to men (and men not to women in other ways) in many ways, based on how people view certain environments and behaviors. Those are important discussions to have continuously, though I agree that a "victim mentality" helps no one. Neither does denying that there were injustices in our past that we corrected and want to keep and that we could perhaps do better, for everyone, as we move forward.

 

reallyhotguy makes some important points about feminist philosophy that I don't feel a need to reiterate because he left them well-said.

 

tl;dr: I do think that making "feminist" a dirty word is a tad misogynistic and that trying to re-define feminism as being anti-male is creating needless animosity and feeding into the "gender war" (if there still is one) you're so mad about.

 

I think the person who continuously makes the connection between feminism and Marxism is dasein. I don't necessarily view Marxism as wrong or evil, but most feminist ideology does have origins in some strand of Marxist ideology, so at the very least he isn't factually wrong about that. No, I don't wish to go back to the "good ol' days," but there are plenty of concrete examples of overreach and overapplication of feminist ideas, some of which I pointed out. That's pretty much all my initial post on the topic was meant to address. I don't negate that there are positive sides to feminism as well. Rather, my point was that the negative sides are rarely, if ever, discussed in an open and constructive manner.

 

I see some light at the end of the tunnel though, because sex-positive feminists as a community, as well as many of the women with whom I attend law school are starting to witness and act out against the gross injustices dealt out to men on a daily basis in the family court system.

 

Re: misogyny. Basically, any sort of humor that pokes fun at females, regardless of how exaggerated, tongue-in-cheek, or satirical it may be, is labeled as misogynistic nowadays. I can't be arsed to find it now, but see if you can find anything on the internet about the outrage over a feature in Maxim entitled something along the lines of "How to turn a hairy vegan feminist into an actual woman." Much of the commentary surrounding it basically equated poking fun at the qualities of a stereotypical feminist with true-blue misogyny. Meanwhile, the article posted yesterday about how men are "trained" to hate women is probably more offensive on its face, yet you won't hear outrage over it being misandrist. Both are pieces of humor, but only one is widely scorned. How is a piece of writing that brands basically all men as being pigs who think with their dicks 24/7 any less offensive than a piece of writing that makes fun of a very small subcategory of women?

 

Again, I don't deny that feminism may in some ways encourage the positive things you say it encourages. I am critical of it because virtually no one else is. That's all.

 

Frankly, reallyhotguy did not do a very good job of defending feminism as a philosophy. He wrongly took issue with one word I used, said that I made comparisons I did not make, and failed to address much of what I said in the long run.

 

"Mad" is such a strong word. Maybe "Gender war" isn't the term I should have used either. I would say that I'm resentful of certain effects of feminism that I see on a daily basis, but other than LS time, it doesn't occupy my psyche all that much.

Edited March 28, 2012 by TheBigQuestion

[TheBigQuestion]

You'll have to excuse me; I saw those as claims in a speech, not points of an argument. They're by-and-large unsubstantiated in your post (perhaps we could call them "complaints"?), and they're also expanded in your post from a basis statement that reveals fundamental misconceptions of feminism (e.g. as a "doctrine"), which I addressed.

 

I'd be happy to talk about it though; is there anything in particular you'd like to discuss?

 

As I said already, individual schools of feminism have certain foundational principles. Would you prefer I use that terminology instead of "doctrine," even though they mean fundamentally the same thing?

[zengirl]

No, I don't wish to go back to the "good ol' days," but there are plenty of concrete examples of overreach and overapplication of feminist ideas, some of which I pointed out.

 

None of those were examples of feminist ideas, though, as reallyhotguy pointed out and as I tried to (though perhaps I jumped around too much to get that point across).

 

And I'm not really sure what concrete examples you mean in your daily life. You painted a picture of so-called feminists you've met seeing men as "the enemy" but I saw no applications of those ideas in your post, FWIW. So, perhaps I'm missing a point?

 

I see some light at the end of the tunnel though, because sex-positive feminists as a community, as well as many of the women with whom I attend law school are starting to witness and act out against the gross injustices dealt out to men on a daily basis in the family court system.

 

I actually think much has been done in the past decade to make family court more gender-neutral, as it should be, provide similar support for SAHDs as SAHMs, push joint-custody as the norm, and so forth. All good in my book!

 

Re: misogyny. Basically, any sort of humor that pokes fun at females, regardless of how exaggerated, tongue-in-cheek, or satirical it may be, is labeled as misogynistic nowadays. I can't be arsed to find it now, but see if you can find anything on the internet about the outrage over a feature in Maxim entitled something along the lines of "How to turn a hairy vegan feminist into an actual woman."

 

I saw that. I don't know that I'd go fuss about it, but it is offensive. I could see where one would suggest it's misogynistic because it suggests feminists aren't women; I think you can make the argument either way, depending, and either way, it's not something that's a huge deal (I would say anyone who'd write that obviously has a somewhat sexist POV on the world, as would anyone who writes that "all men are dogs" or whatever). The term "actual woman" is the problem, and it could be easily remedied, but then it wouldn't be as controversial or get as many hits. C'est la vie. I don't think that piece was intended to be satirical at all. I also think such pieces are often offensive to men (hubby points this out all the time with video game stuff that is kind of offensive to women -- it's also offensive to men who aren't creep-oids!). There's a bikini car wash near our house, and hubby is extremely pissed about it! I find it creepy, but I'm not nearly as offended, in a gender way, as hubby is. I think what's funny is that such things ARE blatantly offensive to men and women.

 

Much of the commentary surrounding it basically equated poking fun at the qualities of a stereotypical feminist with true-blue misogyny.

 

Right. Suggesting a feminist is something extreme and not just a normal woman seeking equality and an open discussion of gender relations, and suggesting feminism was in any way "bad" is what makes it misogynistic.

 

Meanwhile, the article posted yesterday about how men are "trained" to hate women is probably more offensive on its face, yet you won't hear outrage over it being misandrist.

 

I think that article made some good points about the types of men who do hate women. I do agree with you (and I thought the article itself pointed it out) that we need to emphasize that most men do not hate women. Those are just harmful undertones in our society and pop culture that allow that hatred to be formed; I'm sure we could make a list of harmful undertones that help foster negative stereotypes about and hatred towards men as well.

 

Both are pieces of humor, but only one is widely scorned. How is a piece of writing that brands basically all men as being pigs who think with their dicks 24/7 any less offensive than a piece of writing that makes fun of a very small subcategory of women?

 

One is much better written, as well. The Maxim one is a quick and cheap joke, the other article is one that takes at least a bit of time to examine how thoughts and opinions are formed, such as the hateful speech presented by Rush Limbaugh and the specific kinds of people who support that. TBH, I did not take away that men were pigs who think with their dicks from that article. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Cracked for it's in-your-face-tone. All the articles have that there. But I don't think the two articles correlate in levels of intelligence, nuance, or analysis.

 

What's also interesting, as well, is that both were written by men.

 

Again, I don't deny that feminism may in some ways encourage the positive things you say it encourages. I am critical of it because virtually no one else is. That's all.

 

There is no need to be critical of feminism to achieve what you seem to want to achieve. As reallyhotguy said, the best place to hash out these debates would be with a feminist perspective, which allows for gender notions about women AND men to be discussed and critiqued.

 

"Mad" is such a strong word. Maybe "Gender war" isn't the term I should have used either. I would say that I'm resentful of certain effects of feminism that I see on a daily basis, but other than LS time, it doesn't occupy my psyche all that much.

 

What are those effects?

[brokenTom]

It works both ways while at 6'3 i have no height issue i sometimes felt women were with me just because of my height, mentioned it as the first thing about me and went on and on about it as if its what defined me

 

I did find it odd how a lot of women i know not only find short men unattractive but have a almost disdain for them,its like theyre mere presence thretaens some womens femininity in their crazy mind

 

So dont worry short dudes women are bat**** crazy if its any consolation in your struggles:D

No, that's just apparently the type of women you attract. I feel sorry for you

[TheBigQuestion]

None of those were examples of feminist ideas, though, as reallyhotguy pointed out and as I tried to (though perhaps I jumped around too much to get that point across).

 

And I'm not really sure what concrete examples you mean in your daily life. You painted a picture of so-called feminists you've met seeing men as "the enemy" but I saw no applications of those ideas in your post, FWIW. So, perhaps I'm missing a point?

 

 

 

I actually think much has been done in the past decade to make family court more gender-neutral, as it should be, provide similar support for SAHDs as SAHMs, push joint-custody as the norm, and so forth. All good in my book!

 

 

 

I saw that. I don't know that I'd go fuss about it, but it is offensive. I could see where one would suggest it's misogynistic because it suggests feminists aren't women; I think you can make the argument either way, depending, and either way, it's not something that's a huge deal (I would say anyone who'd write that obviously has a somewhat sexist POV on the world, as would anyone who writes that "all men are dogs" or whatever). The term "actual woman" is the problem, and it could be easily remedied, but then it wouldn't be as controversial or get as many hits. C'est la vie. I don't think that piece was intended to be satirical at all. I also think such pieces are often offensive to men (hubby points this out all the time with video game stuff that is kind of offensive to women -- it's also offensive to men who aren't creep-oids!). There's a bikini car wash near our house, and hubby is extremely pissed about it! I find it creepy, but I'm not nearly as offended, in a gender way, as hubby is. I think what's funny is that such things ARE blatantly offensive to men and women.

 

 

 

Right. Suggesting a feminist is something extreme and not just a normal woman seeking equality and an open discussion of gender relations, and suggesting feminism was in any way "bad" is what makes it misogynistic.

 

 

 

I think that article made some good points about the types of men who do hate women. I do agree with you (and I thought the article itself pointed it out) that we need to emphasize that most men do not hate women. Those are just harmful undertones in our society and pop culture that allow that hatred to be formed; I'm sure we could make a list of harmful undertones that help foster negative stereotypes about and hatred towards men as well.

 

 

 

One is much better written, as well. The Maxim one is a quick and cheap joke, the other article is one that takes at least a bit of time to examine how thoughts and opinions are formed, such as the hateful speech presented by Rush Limbaugh and the specific kinds of people who support that. TBH, I did not take away that men were pigs who think with their dicks from that article. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Cracked for it's in-your-face-tone. All the articles have that there. But I don't think the two articles correlate in levels of intelligence, nuance, or analysis.

 

What's also interesting, as well, is that both were written by men.

 

 

 

There is no need to be critical of feminism to achieve what you seem to want to achieve. As reallyhotguy said, the best place to hash out these debates would be with a feminist perspective, which allows for gender notions about women AND men to be discussed and critiqued.

 

 

 

What are those effects?

 

Yes, they're not "ideas," they're effects. Do you really think that endless criticism leveled towards "the patriarchy" wouldn't have the unfortunate (and probably unintended) consequence of instilling some distrust of men? That endlessly wailing about how white men have some sort of privilege that they aren't aware of and can't eliminate (this actually IS a feminist idea, although it certainly plays a role in race-based politics) would encourage some resentment? And all this in spite of the fact that when it comes to anything of consequence, the "white male privilege" is statistically insignificant especially when compared to what white women face? That the true "privilege" applies primarily to the wealthiest in the nation, regardless of race or gender?

 

 

That Cracked article itself makes the assertion that men are thinking with their dicks pretty much 24/7. How else do you think they justified their ludicrous assertion that as a man, I'm likely to get a chubby at my grandma's funeral if some woman there is wearing a cleavage-bearing shirt? Again, I personally don't find it offensive, but I'm thoroughly disappointed that women who claim to be against sexism have little criticism to direct at it. And no, one does not need to have a sexist viewpoint to write something like that. I can simply think that someone looks funny and write an admittedly cheap joke about it. Simple as that.

 

I don't quite understand the point of things like strip clubs, go-go bars, or bikini car-washes (no point in paying money to get blue-balls) but I fail to see why anyone would be offended by the existence of any of those things. I guess your man doesn't subscribe to the sex-positive school of feminism?

[samsungxoxo]

It works both ways while at 6'3 i have no height issue i sometimes felt women were with me just because of my height, mentioned it as the first thing about me and went on and on about it as if its what defined me

And did you dump them afterwards? That would be the equivalent of a man going on about my looks and had nothing else to say.

Find someone that likes and accepts you for what you are, not an ''obsessed about height'' woman.

[Els]

You do realize that the Cracked article was a tongue-in-cheek article written by a man, the same man who wrote 'John dies at the end'?

[reallyhotguy]

As I said already, individual schools of feminism have certain foundational principles. Would you prefer I use that terminology instead of "doctrine," even though they mean fundamentally the same thing?

 

Well, it's not about semantics. For instance, you mention "schools", but you'd have to be more specific about that. You might have people with certain ideas, but I can't come up of the top of my head of examples of particular ideologies that could form a "school", the way I might say Bauhaus is a school of design (also, it was literally a school). That's what I say when I mean fundamental -- I want to see what your issues are and where they're coming from, because, and you'll have to excuse me, but I'm not following.

[TheBigQuestion]

You do realize that the Cracked article was a tongue-in-cheek article written by a man, the same man who wrote 'John dies at the end'?

 

Sure. And the Maxim article I referenced was not in any way more "serious" than the Cracked article. Your point?

[dasein]

My so-called

 

More hot air trying to rationalize Chaucer's ridiculous and inaccurate insult that amounted to a lie.

[dasein]

Trying to rebrand the word "feminism" as something bad or anti-male is part of the problem,

 

Separating the illegitimate categories "women's rights" and "women's issues" out of the legitimate category "human rights" and "human issues," dishonestly portraying women as a "victim class" victimized by men, for the purpose of obtaining discriminatory political advantage over men and discriminatory legal treatment in comparison to men is "anti-male" by definition.

 

There's nothing to "rebrand," it is what it is.

 

Most men I know, luckily, do not resent feminism or my ability or desire to live my life however I please.

 

The latter is a function of the "rule of law" and has nothing to do with one's position on feminism.

 

As far as dismissing opposition to feminism with charged phrases such as "grand gender war," it's usually the beneficiaries of discrimination who blithely dismiss the complaints of those discriminated against with such sentiment. "Oh it isn't that big a deal, you are just a conspiracy nut... get in the oven like a good boy."

[zengirl]

Yes, they're not "ideas," they're effects. Do you really think that endless criticism leveled towards "the patriarchy" wouldn't have the unfortunate (and probably unintended) consequence of instilling some distrust of men?

 

I think we need to criticize any system of patriarchy (that men should too!) and that doing so does not in any way criticize men as a gender. A patriarchal society where men have more power than women, as a gender, and exercise that power over women is not good. That does not mean that ALL men are to be distrusted, though those suggesting patriarchy is a-okay would be, I suppose. I think it's important we remember and look back at history and the way various groups (including women) were subjugated and how long it took them to achieve some very basic rights. Without a sense of history, we get nowhere --- that's with everything not just gender relations!

 

I think it's bizarre to suggest the effect of critiques on patriarchy is distrust of modern men who value equality and women, however, who accept that patriarchy was unhealthy. The idea that criticizing patriarchy somehow takes away from men to me suggests a strong anti-feminist agenda and a desire to incorporate more patriarchal elements into our society and more firmly keep the ones we haven't yet eradicated. How does that help anyone?

 

Also, I would say that patriarchy -- not feminism -- is to blame for any bitterness towards patriarchy. Feminism allowed for positive action that, over time, attempts to negate the need for bitterness, as we all look at patriarchy as a dead and terrible system, just as we view slavery or other poor systems and scars of our past.

 

That endlessly wailing about how white men have some sort of privilege that they aren't aware of and can't eliminate (this actually IS a feminist idea, although it certainly plays a role in race-based politics) would encourage some resentment?

 

I've never seen endless wailing of it, but I think denying white male privilege is a reality that has come about through a historical subjugation of the rights of women and minorities is something we are overcoming year by year, thankfully. You cannot deny our history on this, can you? And changes cannot happen overnight. They have happened, and that's wonderful, but the idea that all of that is just "gone" is extremely Utopian, IMO.

 

And all this in spite of the fact that when it comes to anything of consequence, the "white male privilege" is statistically insignificant especially when compared to what white women face? That the true "privilege" applies primarily to the wealthiest in the nation, regardless of race or gender?

 

I do agree that socio-economic privilege is much greater than any other privilege. That doesn't mean the others do not exist. I would also say that because of this women are more likely to have that particular "leg up" in privilege than other previously subjugated groups, because women are born into just about every family, including wealthy ones. It's also why I think most of the sexism that remains in our nation is not evident a the higher levels of economics or education (at least not in my generation, though with the old white men in charge of things, we're still seeing the refuges of white male privilege in industry -- I have no doubt it's just a matter of time on that; the women of those families and generations were just not as likely to be encouraged to industry the way those men were, but that's not true of their children -- male and female -- thankfully).

 

This is why both racial tensions and gender discrimination and issues are much clearer along lower socio-economic groups. Which is really kind of uncool.

 

That Cracked article itself makes the assertion that men are thinking with their dicks pretty much 24/7. How else do you think they justified their ludicrous assertion that as a man, I'm likely to get a chubby at my grandma's funeral if some woman there is wearing a cleavage-bearing shirt? Again, I personally don't find it offensive, but I'm thoroughly disappointed that women who claim to be against sexism have little criticism to direct at it. And no, one does not need to have a sexist viewpoint to write something like that. I can simply think that someone looks funny and write an admittedly cheap joke about it. Simple as that.

 

I think that utilizing hyperbole and crass humor in an article that seeks to analyze why pockets of society behave the way they do (the introduction with the Rush thing) is different than a blatantly cheap joke aimed at how to get laid. I don't necessarily find either to be deep thinking, as I said, but to me they are written for different purposes. Determining the purpose of writing is absolutely fundamental to reacting to it, IMO (and in the opinion of basically all scholarship on how to write or comprehend written materials).

 

I don't quite understand the point of things like strip clubs, go-go bars, or bikini car-washes (no point in paying money to get blue-balls) but I fail to see why anyone would be offended by the existence of any of those things. I guess your man doesn't subscribe to the sex-positive school of feminism?

 

No, he's fine with sex and women having all the sex they want. He's not fine with female sex as a commodity (i.e. women purely as decoration). The bikini car wash thing doesn't offend him because there's a girl in a bikini --- it offends him because it happens to be right next to where he works (an almost entirely male workplace -- and a rather large company) and generally advertises aimed at the notion of "Men are constantly horny." I'd guess he would not find the same assertions you found distasteful in the Cracked article to be the same thing -- because he'd see what I saw in the intent of the article, I imagine, but I will show it to him tonight to see. He was the one who downvoted the Maxim thing when someone posted it on Reddit. I just shrugged. I'm reasonably hard to offend with stuff like that. I think what bothers him most about the bikini car wash is it's a regular car wash (you drive your car through it, gas station car wash style) with a girl or two in a bikini that don't even hand-wash your car and it costs more than a much better wash-and-detail.

 

Well, it's not about semantics. For instance, you mention "schools", but you'd have to be more specific about that. You might have people with certain ideas, but I can't come up of the top of my head of examples of particular ideologies that could form a "school", the way I might say Bauhaus is a school of design (also, it was literally a school). That's what I say when I mean fundamental -- I want to see what your issues are and where they're coming from, because, and you'll have to excuse me, but I'm not following.

 

Right, feminism doesn't really have schools, so that's simply an incorrect statement.

[zengirl]

Separating the illegitimate categories "women's rights" and "women's issues" out of the legitimate category "human rights" and "human issues," dishonestly portraying women as a "victim class" victimized by men, for the purpose of obtaining discriminatory political advantage over men and discriminatory legal treatment in comparison to men is "anti-male" by definition.

 

There's nothing to "rebrand," it is what it is.

 

The feminism movement was required because women were subjugated by a male-dominated society. It was a human rights movement, just as the civil rights movement was, and abolition was, etc. I am a feminist (as are many men I know) and an advocate of human rights, GLTB rights, children's rights advocate, etc. I don't see how stating anyone's rights stomps on another's. The reason there is no "white male rights" group in this country is the laws of our nation never discriminated against white males, as a class. It's that simple. However, feminism, as a philosophy does attempt to deal with the social roles and struggles of men as well as women in terms of gender identity.

 

The latter is a function of the "rule of law" and has nothing to do with one's position on feminism.

 

Rule of law that came about through the victories of feminism.

Edited March 28, 2012 by zengirl