Required reading for male feminists

Post Reply New Topic

So far, all I'm seeing is either "You're a misogynists!" or "no true feminist".

To everyone using the definition of feminism according to feminists to defend it: MRAs say they are about men's rights and gender equality. Do you agree?

Personally, I think MRAs have the same problems as feminists; employing double standards and blaming the opposite sex for all the world's problems. But what I want to know is: will you be intellectually consistent?

The crazy ones usually run the show - they make more noise.

Actually, I don't say TERFs and other misandrists are "no true feminists". Quite the opposite: I claim non-misandrist feminists are "true feminists" as well.

Would you be able to point to the link and maybe a quote of what in particular, I don't have a lot of personal time to check every long article you might post and try to sift for what it is that you want to talk about.




My understanding of feminism is one that is actually supportive of women who might choose sex, as long as it is their choice, and an understanding that it can be hard work and is exploitive as many other fields. We even have a word for feminists that are not supportive, SWERF (Sex Worker-Exclusionary Radical Feminist), you can even google it to see that indeed it is in usage. I know it is raising flags that you might think I am invoking a new true feminist, but I assure you that the simple fact that we use words like TERF and SWERF for certain members of our own community should be some indicator that we do not accept things like biological essentialism around people "born male", nor those who shame women just because they happen to be in sex work.

Sex workers have really been getting a larger voice in the feminist or Left wing circles I pay attention to, especially since we are against things like purity culture, and see a broad element of coercion in many fields.




This Wikipedia page mentions that she has been embraced after serving her sentence, has talked about treatment of women in prison after having experienced it herself, and has expressed deep regret over her actions. I really don't think that she is being embraced for having killed a man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Hylton#Post-prison

That manifesto is not mainstream feminism tho.

There's legitimate reason for MRAs to exist.
I'm unfamiliar with any relation of misogynist to legit men's rights activists, but from what I perceive, the reasonable and legit MRA's are the minority, fringe. And the crazy misogynists are the mainstream of MRA.
With feminism, it's the other way around.


Btw., since you are in favour of equal rights, you are an equality-feminist, like most feminists.

I linked the article. It's not my responsibility to read it for you.



I see a lot of feminists advocating for women's right to sexual freedom in their private lives. But I've mostly seen only hate directed at sex workers. Go rewatch Tyra Banks' interview with Sasha Gray if you don't believe me. And then go listen to the Holly Randall podcast where Sasha Gray talks about what actually happened in that interview.




Then why are feminists so outraged over MRAs? If their goal actually is equality, then why do they find the notion of men's rights so offensive?

Has it occurred to you that both sides just hold onto every real and imagined slight from the past to justify their hatred, instead of making any effort to work together to build a better future?



I already responded to this nonsense when Walrus said it.

Then answer this: if all the man-hating feminists are fringe radicals, then why don't all the "true feminists" ever call them out or disown them? They have no trouble doing that with the TERFs.

Since everyone's so fond of dictionary definitions, I thought I'd have a look at the dictionary's definition of misogyny.

mi·sog·y·ny
/məˈsäjənē/

noun
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"

So where exactly does it say anything about objection to feminism?

And cue all the special pleading.

We do, it is just that it is not like mainstream news is supportive of sex workers, in fact you are likely to have some newspaper to get a nurse with an Only Fans get fired. Wherever you are getting your news on feminists might not be showing the more sex positive kind that call out SWERFs. But you should regardless see that the existence of these words show our common attitudes.

A lot of media analysts I watch with a feminist lens follow the principles, such as a video I watched recently from The Take that talked about the reclamation of the Bimbo title as not inherently negative. These channels also talk about similarly embraced the Himbo and rare Thembo.

This is a very well-known, longstanding matter of controversy within the feminist movement. See the Wikipedia articles on Feminist views on prostitution and Feminist sex wars. Your apparent unawareness of this intra-movement controversy clearly shows your ignorance about the feminist movement.

I should also point out that even the anti-prostitution feminists do "care about the rights of those women." They just believe that no one would become a prostitute of their own free will.


Probably because, after her release from a 27-year prison sentence, she subsequently made a name for herself as a prison reform activist.

Personally, if I had been one of the organizers of the 2017 Women's March, I would have picked someone else. I wouldn't necessarily object to including her as part of a line-up of speakers at a conference devoted specifically to prison reform. (Given how long she had been in prison, she would be in a good position to talk about how prison conditions changed over the decades, for example.) However, if I were choosing someone to represent the prison reform movement at a larger event, such as the Women's March, that was not devoted specifically to prison reform, I would pick someone who had been convicted of a lesser crime. If it were up to me, I also wouldn't make her a featured speaker even at a prison reform conference, though I wouldn't necessarily object to including her on a panel.

As for why the organizers of the 2017 Women's March picked her, I don't know. My best guess is that she was someone whom the organizers happened to know, and that the organizers may have felt too pressed for time to look for someone better to fill the women-in-prison niche.

Big political marches/rallies like the Women's March usually take at least 4 or 5 months of preparation, whereas the 2017 Women's March (January 21, 2017) was whipped up in a hurry after Trump was elected in November 2016. According to the Wikipedia article on the 2017 Women's March, the permit was not secured until December 9. Given how much work is involved in organizing such a huge march, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of bad decisions were made.

By logical implication. Because feminism = women's rights, and I can think of only three possible kinds of reasons why someone might object to women's rights:

1) Misogyny.
2) Adherence to patriarchal tradition, for the sake of tradition (or a general conservative fear of changing social hierarchies).
3) Adherence to a patriarchal religion.

If someone happens to be an atheist and not generally all that terribly tradition-bound, that leaves only #1.

I really don't know which one you are referring to that is calling for all man in power of authority to step down. I checked them all for the words "step", "power" and "auth" and did not find anything relevant. It is not your responsibility to read for me, but it is up to you to substantiate your claim rather than link a bunch of articles that include some misandrist language and expect me to wade through for your claim that there is some general feminist call to put only women in power.

I think
4) Misconceptions about feminism
should be always included in such a list.

Good point.

You didn't answer the question that was asked.



"We are told he's with us and #NotHim. But, truly, if he were with us, wouldn't this all have ended long ago? If he really were with us, wouldn't he reckon that one good way to change structural violence and inequity would be to refuse the power that comes with it? So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don't run for office. Don't be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this."

Is that enough handholding for you? or do you need me to come tuck in as well?

So let's talk about the level of irrationality and psychosis going on here: not only is this feminist demanding that men step down from any position of authority and vote only for women; but the only way I can absolve myself of the crime of being male is to somehow miraculously restructure the social hierarchy of the entire freakin' planet. If I had the power to do that, do you think I would still be living in a room I rent in someone else's house?! If I was somehow able to place anyone in a position of power, do you think I would still be working for under $20K?! Apparently I've produced "millennia of woe". Just how f***ing old do these people think I am?! !!

And can anyone please direct me to wherever this power I'm failing to refuse is?! As a disabled person with over $70K in student debt and no savings or assets to my name, I could really use some of that.

Edit: btw, this article isn't from some random tmblr blog; it was published in the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Last edited by dorkseid on 18 Feb 2021, 4:10 pm, edited 5 times in total.