Required reading for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

A person's freedom to do anything they choose of their own free will is a right. You're contradicting yourself.



I'd feel a lot better about feminism if people like you were running the show. But alas, that's not the case.



I've already explained that modern feminism is, in practice, about misandry. That is what I object to.

What answer do you want? To say that there are bigger targets to go after for feminism over the misandrists that they are not supporting.




Yeah, well I could not read that post because it kept asking for a subscription and would not let me read it.

As for what you quoted, it hardly seems like it is actually calling for all men in power to step down, instead it is referring to as sort of a group, and a history of being spoken for rather instead of being supported in having an equal voice. It is not hard to look at politics and see that there is a very big gender difference in representation. There are examples that are pretty much humorous where in here in Australia a conservative Prime Minster also made himself the Minister of Women.

It is probably a bit strongly written, and I don't agree with the language that makes it sound like men cannot be with women if they do not give up opportunities to women. But as a general trend to allow women to have equal rights by being able to talk for themselves over a bunch of old white men deciding what all women can do with their bodies, the sentiment should be thought over to listen to be able to listen to women in power rather than listening to men in power talking over women.

Just don't take it so personally as if it is being directed straight at you as being part of an intersectionality of (economic) class and (dis)ability, it is not being directed right at you to give up some sort of power to women. Feminism is not about taking some sort of equal power away from all men, these cases are more about the misappropriate amount of power that lies among the men in power. Of course a rash transition along these lines could remove all allies and just create a dichotomy of just women against veteran men out to limit their rights and will use every opportunity to have examples to prove some point to preserve the system that kept them in power.

You can't have true freedom without removing coercion. Sure, people could have the freedom to work the coal mines, but is that actually free if it is the only job around and they need to feed themselves and their family. The sentiment can partially be in the right place with the idea that women are being economically coerced, but I think that it is found in the wrong place with the assumption that all sex is a male thing, that coercion exists in many fields, and some women can define things on their own terms.

There was a great video I watched a while back that I think had one of the big BreadTubers talking with a panel of porn actors/actresses, and there was quite a bit to say about the problems that have existed in the industry from the old guard, from sexism and homophobia. And there was a sentiment about being happy over Onlyfans that was allowing them to cut out the toxic elements and do things more on their terms.




I think that you just have a certain idea in mind that all the feminists in charge are just man haters, maybe it is the only feminist stuff you are being exposed to and such. Although there is some acknowledgement of an older wave of feminism that was largely about the women against men dichotomy, that can create this perception of more man hate. It has come with calling out many as TERFs.




Modern feminism is about Intersectionality. You have to be getting a rather incomplete picture if you think it is just about misandry.

They clearly have no problem doing that with feminists who attack trans women. All I'm asking is a statement that calls out feminists who bash men by name and disavows them.

They had no problem doing this with JK Rowling. So what's stopping them from doing it with Clementine Ford?!



I was able to read it the first time I came across it. But when I tried to go back to it to get a quote, the paywall was up. But then I was able to access it on my phone to get the quote.



Then I suggest you reread it more closely. The author is clearly demanding that men vacate all positions of authority in order to create a society where women hold all the power. She even punctuates her demands with "we got this." There is no ambiguity here. Her demand is clearly stated "don't be in charge of anything." She doesn't just want all male politicians and CEOs gone; no man is even allowed to manage a grocery store.

Yes, I understand that the current power structure is unbalanced in favor of men. And I agree that that's a problem that needs to be dealt with. But articles like this one make it clear that what feminists want isn't a power structure that's balanced, but one that's unbalanced in favor of women. That's not gender equality; it's female supremacy.

The language of this article makes it clear that it is personally directed at any and every man who considers himself a supporter of women's rights. It points to the continued exitance of patriarchal power structures as evidence that not even one man exists that truly supports equality. As if one such man is capable of toppling the entire global system of power singlehandedly. It's utterly irrational.

Your attempts to use mental gymnastics to convince me that this article is somehow saying anything other than what it is clearly saying in plain English have failed. The article is titled "Why Can't We Hate Men?" It can't get any more unambiguous than that.

And this is from the Washington Post. It's not just mainstream feminism; it's mainstream. Period.

I don't know ANY woman who thinks that way; and I've only met a couple in my 60 years of life. And I've met a lot of people.

If you base your opinion of women on what "feminists" say on the Internet, you will, inevitably, have a distorted opinion.

Well, I don't agree with her opinion if that is what she believes. She is allowed to have her own opinion, but she does not talk for all of us.

Look, I have had my time of being at the wrong hand of these things. When I was a kid in Primary school I touched the chest of a girl in tag and got heavily berated by the teacher based on the assumption that a boy had to have impure intentions, as I had no idea why I was in trouble. In high school a flash drive with porn on it that I had was lost and reached the hands of the vice principal and I got chewed out by her in accusing me of being disrespectful towards women, because apparently porn automatically means you are disrespectful. But I did not let these events colour my opinion of all possible feminist leaning people, and I think more can be done as a feminist rather than try and call feminism itself misandrist.

Do you want me to start bombarding you with feminist stuff that is in no way about misandry.

I never said anything about women. I'm talking about feminists.

There are women who are not feminists and feminists who are not women.

Many of the feminists I've had issues with are men. Like Walrus.

Last edited by Cornflake on 19 Feb 2021, 9:16 am, edited 3 times in total.: Removed personal attack

I don't see your opinion in mainstream publication like the Washington post.



I'm not talking about "all possible feminist leaning people". I'm talking about what's dominating the mainstream discourse.



And I've never murdered anyone. Does that prove that violence is uncommon?

I don’t like the “intersectionality” viewpoint. I find that it encourages people to feel like victims within multiple contexts.

First and second generation feminism is fine with me.

But only they get to decide who is or isn't marginalized. For instance, men with ASD cannot be marginalized.

You have ASD, so you are marginalised, that is a party of how intersectionality works, it is not that you tick of man and now you are not listed as marginalised. Instead it looks at what different group you are part of, sees how they intersect, and understand the different experiences related to that.

For instances, a rich white cis-woman could have very different experiences to a poor black trans-woman, or trans-man or poor cis-man. Class, disability, race and nationality can have a big difference in terms of experience, and not just that all man have power that makes them better off than women.

Men can be victims through intersectional lenses, where you get expectations of what is masculine or not. It is why I would say that lesbian women are a bit more accepted than gay men in terms of showing relationships.

Everybody can be a victim under this regime.

Yes?

And it is also worth looking for trends to identify systematic issues, and reduce the amount and severity of victims.

@ dorkseid

What is your goal? Do you just want to get people to stop identifying as feminists? Do you want people to hate feminists? What do you identify with? If it is just gender equality, then do you have a particular movement that you would consider yourself a part of?

It can be pretty easy to be just against something, being for and defending something can be harder. Does the harm from bad feminists outweigh by the good of good feminists?

Not that I think it's good for people to feel like victims but saying "women are under-privileged*" might work out better than saying "men are privileged". Privileged makes it sound like men are the enemy because they have something they shouldn't. Saying women are under-privileged leaves men as "average" therefore making it easier to consider autistic men as under-privileged too, if that makes sense? Then the feminists could see dorkseid as someone else who might need help with some issues rather than as a privileged enemy who needs taking down a peg. Of course the ones he's come into contact with might just hate men anyway so it wouldn't make a difference.
*Using "under-privileged" here because I can't think of a better word.

In that sense, it’s a better approach....but there’s still too much victimization going on within “intersectionality”—some of which is erroneous.

I’m “privileged” in some ways, an “oppressed minority” in others. I am both the “oppressor” and the “victim.”

But I don’t go through life oppressing folks and feeling victimized. I adapt to the cards which I was dealt.