Feminism and the emasculation of men

PucaMama

tritium wrote: »

Well, let's see. Janice Raymond has advocated massive discrimination against transgender people in the US. As a result many were denied basic levels of health care they required.

Dworkin, would be heroin smuggler and conspiracy theorist, was a PIV nut who would deny the right to consent to (heterosexual) sex on the basis it was equivalent to rape (what does that make her? An antirapist? Sound too positive)

Neither are looking particularly positive I'm afraid, even if Janice Raymond has managed over the years to airbrush her hate filled ideology and build a career as an acceptable advocate (strange how that baggage habt followed her a bit more )

so that's a no so

tritium

PucaMama wrote: »

so that's a no so

I guess you're a fan of one or the other so.

Tell me, why would one form of hate speech be more acceptable than another, hypothetically speaking?

Femme_Fatale

tritium wrote: »

I see that opinion posted frequently

I see it going unchallenged by feminists I know frequently

Yeh but it's not happening on this thread, yet it's ok for people to post that anyone with feminist leanings is deserving of being lumped in with the crazies.

I'm not seeing any guys on this thread (apart from HatTrickPatrick) condemning Paul Elam whose quotes have been linked to on this thread (a man who said women who wear skimpy clothes don't ask to be raped... they beg to be raped) yet I don't decide "Oh they must be as bad as him so if they don't condemn him" because it goes without saying that you're not. Hardly anyone is.

Links234

tritium wrote: »

In the way that there are a number of feminists groups that are anti abortion for example Feminists for Life. I'd see abortion covering a broad spectrum of groups since it gets into areas such as ethics far more than most mainstream feminist topics

(Disclaimer- as i've posted before I sit strictly in the the grey area (as opposed to black and white) wrt abortion. I provide the above as information rather than endorsement. If anyone wants to tell me that these are all self loathing women/ a front for the RCC etc knock yourself out but I won't be biting)

As has been pointed out constantly, feminists are not a hive mind and pointing out that there are feminist anti abortion groups doesn't prove anything. It's like saying "Marriage equality has nothing to do with gay rights!" and trotting out Paddy Manning.

Abortion legislation is a women's rights issue because it directly impacts women, and no amount of whataboutery can change that.

PucaMama

tritium wrote: »

I guess you're a fan of one or the other so.

Tell me, why would one form of hate speech be more acceptable than another, hypothetically speaking?

i asked you a question you are the one that went way off topic so i don't no what's your problem.

hatrickpatrick

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yeh but it's not happening on this thread, yet it's ok for people to post that anyone with feminist leanings is deserving of being lumped in with the crazies.

I'm not seeing any guys on this thread (apart from HatTrickPatrick) condemning Paul Elam whose quotes have been linked to on this thread (a man who said women who wear skimpy clothes don't ask to be raped... they beg to be raped) yet I don't decide "Oh they must be as bad as him so if they don't condemn him" because it goes without saying that you're not. Hardly anyone is.

I put it to you again that his are fringe view which have not[/b been adopted by high profile groups all over the world and actually affected a loss of people's freedom.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/no-blurred-lines-at-all-as-queens-university-students-ban-robin-thickes-hit-song-29772262.html

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10707937.University_of_Bolton_students__union_bans_controversial_Robin_Thicke_song_Blurred_Lines/

I could go on and on, there are at least 20 of these stories just at first glance, so let's move on to something else:

How come feminists campaigned and succeeded in censoring these t-shirts:
http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/14/topman-pulls-t-shirts-with-sexist-and-offensive-slogans-from-uk-stores-150058/

But did no such thing in the case of these?

http://www.fat-tee.com/boys-are-stupid-throw-rocks-at-them-womens-t-shirts/


Here we have very high profile feminist campaigns calling for selective censorship. When they start making international headlines and getting something banned in so many different venues, you cannot any longer claim they are a fringe movement which can be ignored. They are high profile and influential.

And once again, note that I have provided citations to back up my opinions.

The difference between these and Elam's nutjob views should be obvious - he's never managed to get his crackpot ideas adopted as official policy in large institutions around the world.

PucaMama

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I put it to you again that his are fringe view which have not[/b been adopted by high profile groups all over the world and actually affected a loss of people's freedom.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/no-blurred-lines-at-all-as-queens-university-students-ban-robin-thickes-hit-song-29772262.html

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10707937.University_of_Bolton_students__union_bans_controversial_Robin_Thicke_song_Blurred_Lines/

I could go on and on, there are at least 20 of these stories just at first glance, so let's move on to something else:

How come feminists campaigned and succeeded in censoring these t-shirts:
http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/14/topman-pulls-t-shirts-with-sexist-and-offensive-slogans-from-uk-stores-150058/

But did no such thing in the case of these?

http://www.fat-tee.com/boys-are-stupid-throw-rocks-at-them-womens-t-shirts/


Here we have very high profile feminist campaigns calling for selective censorship. When they start making international headlines and getting something banned in so many different venues, you cannot any longer claim they are a fringe movement which can be ignored. They are high profile and influential.

And once again, note that I have provided citations to back up my opinions.

The difference between these and Elam's nutjob views should be obvious - he's never managed to get his crackpot ideas adopted as official policy in large institutions around the world.

not playing one song is hardly that big of a deal? Its one song surely it wasnt that important. Its not really the kind of song you want played all over the place anyway.

tritium

PucaMama wrote: »

i asked you a question you are the one that went way off topic so i don't no what's your problem.

No you tried to make a point about how nasty paul elam is, and in my limited knowledge of his work i agree. I however countered with two equally unpleasant examples from the other side of the fence. You appeared not to like this and gave some examples of how hateful Mr Elam is. Since, given their relative leanings, Dworkin and Raymond are fairly unlikely to share Elam's views I provided comparable examples of their hateful nature. You somewhat smugly dismisssed that and then got upset when I called you out on it.....

hatrickpatrick

PucaMama wrote: »

not playing one song is hardly that big of a deal? Its one song surely it wasnt that important.

It's the principle of calling for free speech to be restricted, which has nothing to do with "men and women should be treated equally" and yet is the reason I don't support feminism. This is just one example of many - very high profile and successful feminist campaigns over the last few years have called for all sorts of things to be banned, edited, censored, or restricted due to alleged offensiveness.

Its not really the kind of song you want played all over the place anyway.

In your opinion, but since when did anyone's opinion of what's offensive trample somebody else's right to freedom of expression?

tritium

PucaMama wrote: »

not playing one song is hardly that big of a deal? Its one song surely it wasnt that important. Its not really the kind of song you want played all over the place anyway.

It was a hit worldwide so I think its fair to say plenty of folk wanted to play it

Can I use the "its only one song/book/author /etc" arguement for anything else I'd like to ban?

PucaMama

tritium wrote: »

No you tried to make a point about how nasty paul elam is, and in my limited knowledge of his work i agree. I however countered with two equally unpleasant examples from the other side of the fence. You appeared not to like this and gave some examples of how hateful Mr Elam is. Since, given their relative leanings, Dworkin and Raymond are fairly unlikely to share Elam's views I provided comparable examples of their hateful nature. You somewhat smugly dismisssed that and then got upset when I called you out on it.....

i don't think i said half of that.....have u got me confused with another poster

PucaMama

tritium wrote: »

It was a hit worldwide so I think its fair to say plenty of folk wanted to play it

Can I use the "its only one song/book/author /etc" arguement for anything else I'd like to ban?

if it was full of the same rubbish as that song in sure plenty would agree with you

tritium

Links234 wrote: »

As has been pointed out constantly, feminists are not a hive mind and pointing out that there are feminist anti abortion groups doesn't prove anything. It's like saying "Marriage equality has nothing to do with gay rights!" and trotting out Paddy Manning.

Abortion legislation is a women's rights issue because it directly impacts women, and no amount of whataboutery can change that.

Ok I won't bite on the abortion bit as I said I don't do black/ white on that But honestly the use of the term whataboutery in your argument really only serves to show how weak it is

Your point was about feminism. I pointed out that feminism didn't agree on this. You then proceed to make my point back to me and accuse me of whataboutery. Seriously?

You're own concession that feminism, not being a hive mind, doesn't have a common or remotely close to common view illustrates the point better than I have. Put simply while some feminists may support the right to have an abortion that doesn't in itself make it a feminist issue

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I put it to you again that his are fringe view which have not[/b been adopted by high profile groups all over the world and actually affected a loss of people's freedom.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/nov/12/robin-thicke-blurred-lines-banned-another-university

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/no-blurred-lines-at-all-as-queens-university-students-ban-robin-thickes-hit-song-29772262.html

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10707937.University_of_Bolton_students__union_bans_controversial_Robin_Thicke_song_Blurred_Lines/

I could go on and on, there are at least 20 of these stories just at first glance, so let's move on to something else:

How come feminists campaigned and succeeded in censoring these t-shirts:
http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/14/topman-pulls-t-shirts-with-sexist-and-offensive-slogans-from-uk-stores-150058/

But did no such thing in the case of these?

http://www.fat-tee.com/boys-are-stupid-throw-rocks-at-them-womens-t-shirts/


Here we have very high profile feminist campaigns calling for selective censorship. When they start making international headlines and getting something banned in so many different venues, you cannot any longer claim they are a fringe movement which can be ignored. They are high profile and influential.

And once again, note that I have provided citations to back up my opinions.

The difference between these and Elam's nutjob views should be obvious - he's never managed to get his crackpot ideas adopted as official policy in large institutions around the world.

You keep banging this 'I do not support feminism because some feminists call for censorship of some things' drum by the same token do you not consider yourself a human being as some human beings kill to enforce censorship?

We get it - you don't like censorship. But the way you are carrying on one would think that the only people in the whole world who call for things to be censored are feminists and have completely ignored those feminists (like myself) who have never called for anything to be censored.

As a matter of interest - do you believe in an absolute right of free speech? No matter how crazy/hateful/obnoxious/untrue that free speech is?

If you do - why are you getting so upset about feminists exercising their right to free speech?

Comes across as you saying 'I utter defend the principle of free speech - except for feminists. Feminists who say things I disagree with should be censored by other feminists.'

Bannasidhe

tritium wrote: »

Ok I won't bite on the abortion bit as I said I don't do black/ white on that But honestly the use of the term whataboutery in your argument really only serves to show how weak it is

Your point was about feminism. I pointed out that feminism didn't agree on this. You then proceed to make my point back to me and accuse me of whataboutery. Seriously?

You're own concession that feminism, not being a hive mind, doesn't have a common or remotely close to common view illustrates the point better than I have. Put simply while some feminists may support the right to have an abortion that doesn't in itself make it a feminist issue

Argument 1 = Feminists don't publicly disagree or voice their opposition to statements other feminists make which they disagree with...

Argument 2 = All feminists do not agree and there are pro/anti groups calling themselves feminist...


Which is it lads?

tritium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Argument 1 = Feminists don't publicly disagree or voice their opposition to statements other feminists make which they disagree with...

Argument 2 = All feminists do not agree and there are pro/anti groups calling themselves feminist...


Which is it lads?

Um I think you'll find my series of posts around this one are in response to a poster who wants to equally flip flop between feminist issue/ not a hive mind. Theyre just doing it from the other side of the fence (and throwing in accusations of whataboutery for completeness)

You're possibly confusing me with another poster since I don't think ive argued the all feminists think alike view (I'd more suggest that mainstream feminism has an image problem that many feminists seem unaware of / defensive about)

Links234

tritium wrote: »

Ok I won't bite on the abortion bit as I said I don't do black/ white on that But honestly the use of the term whataboutery in your argument really only serves to show how weak it is

Your point was about feminism. I pointed out that feminism didn't agree on this. You then proceed to make my point back to me and accuse me of whataboutery. Seriously?

You're own concession that feminism, not being a hive mind, doesn't have a common or remotely close to common view illustrates the point better than I have. Put simply while some feminists may support the right to have an abortion that doesn't in itself make it a feminist issue

Saying "Well what about these feminists who are against abortion?!" is pure triple distilled whataboutery.

And if you're pointing to the fact that feminism is not a hive mind as a way of dismissing genuine goals, are you saying that there is no such thing as any feminist goal unless there is 100% agreement from every feminist? That's a pretty untenable position. Sounds to me like you just want to pick and choose what you consider feminism, because you're pointing towards radicals like Janice Raymond, someone who opposses sex workers rights among other things, as an example of how nasty feminism is, while hand-waving away what is certainly one of the universal goals of feminism. It's like you're trying to make some kind of reverse-"no true scottsman" fallacy where only the nasty elements of feminism are real feminism.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You keep banging this 'I do not support feminism because some feminists call for censorship of some things' drum by the same token do you not consider yourself a human being as some human beings kill to enforce censorship?

1: Comparing a political ideology to a species is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted on AH... And that's quite an impressive epithet

2: It's not "some", it's apparently a huge amount of them.

We get it - you don't like censorship. But the way you are carrying on one would think that the only people in the whole world who call for things to be censored are feminists and have completely ignored those feminists (like myself) who have never called for anything to be censored.

Many feminists in this thread who do not call for things to be censored have still come out with the "if you don't support feminism, you must be sexist / insecure / afraid of losing your dominance / etc" line, which I'm trying to illustrate just isn't true at all.

As a matter of interest - do you believe in an absolute right of free speech? No matter how crazy/hateful/obnoxious/untrue that free speech is?

Absolutely.

If you do - why are you getting so upset about feminists exercising their right to free speech?

They have a right to say anything they like, but if they do, I can choose not to subscribe to the ideology they follow. That's my right to freedom of association - and the point is, I'm sick of being accused of disliking feminism for nefarious reasons when the reason I dislike it is in fact nothing to do with being a sexist pig. I'm sick of the "feminism = equality" argument because it simply isn't true anymore - feminism encompasses a wide range of miscellaneous ideologies apart from equality, and if one takes issue with a substantial number of those, one can legitimately claim to be pro equality but anti feminist. That's the point I'm trying to make - the word "feminism" no longer has one meaning, it has a whole bunch of different meanings, and you cannot infer that someone who disapproves of the movement has an issue with just one of those specific meanings while ignoring the possibility that there are others.

Clairefontaine has voiced her own shunning of the feminist label. Femme Fatale responded with "but you're a woman!" as if implying that for a woman not to support feminism was somehow bizarre. This would seem to bring it back to the "if you don't support feminism, you don't support equality" line, which is no longer accurate and is unfairly demonizing towards those who disapprove of feminism for different reasons.

Make sense?

Comes across as you saying 'I utter defend the principle of free speech - except for feminists. Feminists who say things I disagree with should be censored by other feminists.'

Absolutely not. But a large enough proportion of feminists call for censorship that it becomes something which is intrinsically linked to the term "feminist", for anyone who's followed these stories over the last couple of years - so once again, what my argument is really about, is trying to get rid of the assumption that "feminists support x and y, I don't support y, therefore I can also be accused of not supporting x".

If feminism = x + y and I don't support y, I won't call myself a feminist - but that doesn't give anyone the right to accuse me of automatically not supporting x when they know perfectly well that x is not the only issue at play.

Bannasidhe

tritium wrote: »

Um I think you'll find my series of posts around this one are in response to a poster who wants to equally flip flop between feminist issue/ not a hive mind. Theyre just doing it from the other side of the fence (and throwing in accusations of whataboutery for completeness)

You're possibly confusing me with another poster since I don't think ive argued the all feminists think alike view (I'd more suggest that mainstream feminism has an image problem that many feminists seem unaware of / defensive about)

I was simply commenting that feminism is being accused of two completely contradictory things.

Also - have you considered that feminism has always has an 'image problem' among certain sections of society (ugly women's libbers/man-haters etc were flung about from the very inception of the Women's Liberation Movement - not to mention the 'image problem' of the Votes for Women campaign) and we just don't care.

Every movement that challenges the status quo has 'image problems' - it comes with the territory.

Wibbs

PucaMama wrote: »

not playing one song is hardly that big of a deal? Its one song surely it wasnt that important. Its not really the kind of song you want played all over the place anyway.

PucaMama wrote: »

if it was full of the same rubbish as that song in sure plenty would agree with you

I don't even... "Shure tis only the one thing and shure who'd want to listen/read/see it anyway". And this folks is how censorship gets grassroots support.

hatrickpatrick

tritium wrote: »

(I'd more suggest that mainstream feminism has an image problem that many feminists seem unaware of / defensive about)

Sume up in one paragraph what I've been trying to say across about 10 posts. Thank you sir.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1: Comparing a political ideology to a species is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen posted on AH... And that's quite an impressive epithet

2: It's not "some", it's apparently a huge amount of them.



Many feminists in this thread who do not call for things to be censored have still come out with the "if you don't support feminism, you must be sexist / insecure / afraid of losing your dominance / etc" line, which I'm trying to illustrate just isn't true at all.



Absolutely.



They have a right to say anything they like, but if they do, I can choose not to subscribe to the ideology they follow. That's my right to freedom of association - and the point is, I'm sick of being accused of disliking feminism for nefarious reasons when the reason I dislike it is in fact nothing to do with being a sexist pig. I'm sick of the "feminism = equality" argument because it simply isn't true anymore - feminism encompasses a wide range of miscellaneous ideologies apart from equality, and if one takes issue with a substantial number of those, one can legitimately claim to be pro equality but anti feminist. That's the point I'm trying to make - the word "feminism" no longer has one meaning, it has a whole bunch of different meanings, and you cannot infer that someone who disapproves of the movement has an issue with just one of those specific meanings while ignoring the possibility that there are others.

Clairefontaine has voiced her own shunning of the feminist label. Femme Fatale responded with "but you're a woman!" as if implying that for a woman not to support feminism was somehow bizarre. This would seem to bring it back to the "if you don't support feminism, you don't support equality" line, which is no longer accurate and is unfairly demonizing towards those who disapprove of feminism for different reasons.

Make sense?



Absolutely not. But a large enough proportion of feminists call for censorship that it becomes something which is intrinsically linked to the term "feminist", for anyone who's followed these stories over the last couple of years - so once again, what my argument is really about, is trying to get rid of the assumption that "feminists support x and y, I don't support y, therefore I can also be accused of not supporting x".

If feminism = x + y and I don't support y, I won't call myself a feminist - but that doesn't give anyone the right to accuse me of automatically not supporting x when they know perfectly well that x is not the only issue at play.

Gosh what a lot of waffle text - I asked you a very simple question

Do you support the absolute right to free speech or not?

If you do - why are you calling for some feminists to be censored by other feminists?

Please try and keep your answer to a few paragraphs as I have a meeting soon and don't have time to wade through reams of wordyness.

hatrickpatrick

Links234 wrote: »

Saying "Well what about these feminists who are against abortion?!" is pure triple distilled whataboutery.

And if you're pointing to the fact that feminism is not a hive mind as a way of dismissing genuine goals, are you saying that there is no such thing as any feminist goal unless there is 100% agreement from every feminist? That's a pretty untenable position. Sounds to me like you just want to pick and choose what you consider feminism

The irony is incredible. Feminists in this thread are doing the same by claiming that pro-censorship is not mainstream feminism despite its high profile nature and its international successes and widespread publicity in the mainstream media, on the internet, etc.

Let me ask one question:
What criteria does a feminist sub-goal have to satisfy before it can be considered a valid criticism of feminism itself?

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The irony is incredible. Feminists in this thread are doing the same by claiming that pro-censorship is not mainstream feminism despite its high profile nature and its international successes and widespread publicity in the mainstream media, on the internet, etc.

Let me ask one question:
What criteria does a feminist sub-goal have to satisfy before it can be considered a valid criticism of feminism itself?

How about you answer the question I have asked twice now?

Do you believe in the absolute right to free speech?

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gosh what a lot of waffle text - I asked you a very simple question

I answered it in one word, "absolutely".

Do you support the absolute right to free speech or not?

Absolutely. As I said above, in this exact word, if you had taken a moment to have a look at my reply.

If you do - why are you calling for some feminists to be censored by other feminists?

I'm not. Read above. What I'm trying to do is point out that pro censorship campaigning is mainstream, high profile, and widespread enough to be a valid reason for anyone - man or woman - to say "I don't approve of feminism" WITHOUT being accused of being a sexist, wanting "dominance", not believing in equality, or any of the other ridiculous reactionary soundbites which get hurled at anyone who comes out and says "I don't approve of feminism".
Again it's a straw man argument - feminism = x + y, I don't support y, therefore that automatically means I also don't support x? Makes no sense.
Water is hydrogen and oxygen. I don't have oxygen. That does not automatically mean you can assume I have no hydrogen.

Suitable analogy? I can come up with another if that isn't clear enough.

Please try and keep your answer to a few paragraphs as I have a meeting soon and don't have time to wade through reams of wordyness.

I was trying to answer comprehensively, I also used one word "Absolutely" to reply to your bolded question, which you either didn't see or chose to ignore...

DeVore

I'd call it "criticising and complaining". Censoring is an action.

Bannasidhe

DeVore wrote: »

I'd call it "criticising and complaining". Censoring is an action.

And one of the criticisms being laid against feminists is their failure to take action.

We are being asked why oh why oh why we let radical voices speak. Why the mainstream doesn't step in and silence them.

The answer is Freedom of Speech.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What else would you call someone complaining that 'mainstream' feminists are not actively trying to stop 'radical' feminists from saying whatever they want?

To quote Batman, "Who said anything about stopping it?"

I call that censorship.

It would indeed be censorship. Some MRAs call for that and whanever I come across them on Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, wherever, I make a point of telling them that they're being incredibly counter productive.

As much as I may disagree with the extreme fringe and their pronouncements I utterly defend their right to voice them.

So do I. Do you defend the right of Robin Thicke to sing about whatever he wants to sing about? Do you defend the right of clubs, radio stations, parties etc to play whatever songs they want to play? Do you support the right of a clothes company to sell whatever slogans they want on their t shirts, provided they don't defame any specific individuals?

If you do, you disagree with an absolutely vast, vocal, high profile, and above all powerful and influential feminists around the world. In my opinion, a sizable enough number that you would be well within your rights to legitimately say "I don't support feminism" even if you agree with most other feminist campaigns, and I wouldn't accuse you of being "insecure", "afraid of losing your dominance", "anti equality" or any other such ridiculous arguments.

That is free speech.

Of course it is. Please tell me where I said otherwise.

hatrickpatrick

DeVore wrote: »

I'd call it "criticising and complaining". Censoring is an action.

You're generally a sensible fella (not just saying that to be a lick arse, honest ) - would you agree that a movement containing a large number of campaigns demanding censorship can be opposed purely on those grounds, without anyone assuming it's being opposed on different grounds?

Bannasidhe

Teabag224 wrote: »

Who said they should be stopped? They should be criticised, not stopped.

and they are criticised.

But apparently unless we spend our every waking moment critiquing or we are complicit .

I do seem to have touched a nerve when I said Radical Feminists are exercising their 'right' to Free Speech....