Outspoken male "feminists" are hypocrites

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

A black person in the US will quite often be wary when they see a cop.

So if I was a white man in the US, would it be ok for me to be wary of black men?

If I was a a black man in the US, would it be ok for me to be wary of other black men?

Both are more likely to be killed by a black man than a cop or is that just plain old racism?

Sand

Grayson wrote: »

I I was the victim of an assault...Think of the number of women who would be scared to go travelling alone. Men don't have that fear.

Men do have that fear. Men are overwhelmingly the target of violence. You can be walking home from the shops and be beaten so badly you lose all your teeth, have your eye socket fractured and have to eat through a straw in a savage and ultimately meaningless assault.

This idea that men are somehow immune to concern about attacks or violence is deluded. Men are the primary targets and it is not even close. Women are protected to some extent by the 'You don't hit girls' message bred into men from the time they are knee high. The message 'You dont hit boys either' hasn't yet sunk in. Most men will not wander down dark alleys. Most men will steer well clear of loud, aggressive, drunken groups. Most men will consciously or otherwise think defensively when wandering home late at night, often alone, often drunk, often vulnerable. I see this delusion often repeated in some writers who I presume have never talked to a man older than 18 and think men just wander brashly around without a care in the world, certain bad things only happen to women and other people.

Grayson

Sand wrote: »

Men do have that fear. Men are overwhelmingly the target of violence. You can be walking home from the shops and be beaten so badly you lose all your teeth, have your eye socket fractured and have to eat through a straw in a savage and ultimately meaningless assault.

This idea that men are somehow immune to concern about attacks or violence is deluded. Men are the primary targets and it is not even close. Women are protected to some extent by the 'You don't hit girls' message bred into men from the time they are knee high. The message 'You dont hit boys either' hasn't yet sunk in. Most men will not wander down dark alleys. Most men will steer well clear of loud, aggressive, drunken groups. Most men will consciously or otherwise think defensively when wandering home late at night, often alone, often drunk, often vulnerable. I see this delusion often repeated in some writers who I presume have never talked to a man older than 18 and think men just wander brashly around without a care in the world, certain bad things only happen to women and other people.

You're right. We have it worse. There are far more beatings of men than there are sexual assaults on women. And women never get hit during a sexual assault because "you don't hit girls".

You win the cock measuring contest.

I will take solace in that I was right that you can't mention that women experience sexual harassment without some in secure guy who has to say that it's nothing and men have it worse. It's weird how it's utterly impossible to say that women experience worse amounts sexual harassment/assault without someone finding that something has been triggered in them and they have to try and one up them.

Grayson

FizzleSticks wrote: »

I am a woman. You are a male feminist lecturing an actual female on what it is to be a woman!

You're a supporter of feminism, calling yourself a male feminist is not helping, its eyeroll inducing. You'll never understand what its like to be a woman in the same way that I will never understand what its like to be an ethnic minority so I don't see how its helpful to appoint yourself the title.

My response was to someone classing a certain form of feminism as irritating and even you think some of it is bullshít. I said that its purpose should be to tackle the ill treatment of women and there certainly are a lot of people giving feminism a bad name.

Feminism is becoming a joke in the eyes of the public thanks to some feminists and that in turn makes things worse for women. Speaking as a woman of course.

That was my point. Did you read my posts. I said that I don't know what it's like. I said I try to understand but that as a man I can't know what it's like because although women live in the same world as me they experience it differently, however what's worse is that most men aren't even aware of it.

The thing is that although I dislike 90% of third wave feminism I don't think it's all bad. I think that there's too little focus on women globally. I think there's too much academic discussion because those sort of activities appear elitist and very rarely trickle down. I think grassroots activity that raises awareness and combats certain stereotypes is far better.

ligerdub

Grayson wrote: »

You're right. We have it worse. There are far more beatings of men than there are sexual assaults on women. And women never get hit during a sexual assault because "you don't hit girls".

You win the cock measuring contest.

I will take solace in that I was right that you can't mention that women experience sexual harassment without some in secure guy who has to say that it's nothing and men have it worse. It's weird how it's utterly impossible to say that women experience worse amounts sexual harassment/assault without someone finding that something has been triggered in them and they have to try and one up them.

You never mentioned sexual harassment in your original post. You only mentioned the feeling of safety and that men are oblivious to the safety concerns involved in those issues. Replies to you have rightfully been to dismiss that.

The issue of safety in such a situation involves any form of violent attacks (sexual and non-sexual forms), which includes both men and women. That is the point here.

Had your point been "men don't have to walk about in a dark place at night without the fear of rape" then I'm sure most people would have taken that comment and cast aside the minor % of male attacks and agreed with you. With respect, that isn't what you said though.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's very strange that there are such strident positions taken on feminism, but it was very hard to get them to talk about why they hold those positions. It's an internet discussion forum to discuss ideas. It's not a great big 'gotcha' setup. I asked for your opinions and that's what I think based on the responses.

not really, my guess is that feminists are viewed as a group that will never be happy, they are like cultural locusts so no matter how good things get a whole new front will open somewhere, "microaggression" anyone? sexist video games?
to keep "the lads" happy it would be,a fair shake in the courts, dont quota us out of jobs and dont deconstruct dating based on neurotic feminist ideas. Now who is being reasonable and who isnt?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

not really, my guess is that feminists are viewed as a group that will never be happy, they are like cultural locusts so no matter how good things get a whole new front will open somewhere, "microaggression" anyone? sexist video games? to keep "the lads" happy it would be,a fair shake in the courts, dont quota us out of jobs and dont deconstruct dating based on neurotic feminist ideas. Now who is being reasonable and who isnt?

The second half of your post is reasonable. First half sounds vague and dogmatic.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The second half of your post is reasonable. First half sounds vague and dogmatic.

a dogmatic suspicion based on past observations maybe :pac:

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

a dogmatic suspicion based on past observations maybe

As you wish. Are you comfortable with holding a dogmatic position like that?

Grayson

ligerdub wrote: »

You never mentioned sexual harassment in your original post. You only mentioned the feeling of safety and that men are oblivious to the safety concerns involved in those issues. Replies to you have rightfully been to dismiss that.

The issue of safety in such a situation involves any form of violent attacks (sexual and non-sexual forms), which includes both men and women. That is the point here.

Had your point been "men don't have to walk about in a dark place at night without the fear of rape" then I'm sure most people would have taken that comment and cast aside the minor % of male attacks and agreed with you. With respect, that isn't what you said though.

It was the third sentence. I've copied it here.

Most women will be sexually harassed at some point.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As you wish. Are you comfortable with holding a dogmatic position like that?

I judge arguments based on merit, I wont dismiss a good argument however if Dulally or Bindel or some other feminist writes a big article Ill be on the lookout for BS. Nothing wrong there

Call Me Jimmy

Sand wrote: »

Men do have that fear. Men are overwhelmingly the target of violence. You can be walking home from the shops and be beaten so badly you lose all your teeth, have your eye socket fractured and have to eat through a straw in a savage and ultimately meaningless assault.

This idea that men are somehow immune to concern about attacks or violence is deluded. Men are the primary targets and it is not even close. Women are protected to some extent by the 'You don't hit girls' message bred into men from the time they are knee high. The message 'You dont hit boys either' hasn't yet sunk in. Most men will not wander down dark alleys. Most men will steer well clear of loud, aggressive, drunken groups. Most men will consciously or otherwise think defensively when wandering home late at night, often alone, often drunk, often vulnerable. I see this delusion often repeated in some writers who I presume have never talked to a man older than 18 and think men just wander brashly around without a care in the world, certain bad things only happen to women and other people.

A man who doesn't carry himself confidently in a bad area I think is in way more danger than any woman. Of the men I know who got beaten up just walking around they were the pretty shy type. Or at least not aware of the fact that the lack of confidence if picked up on, in and of itself would make them a target. I don't think I know a woman at all who has been so much as slapped by a stranger / man.

TerrorFirmer

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There is a hardcore element that take it to the extreme and seem to be obsessed with the notion of labels and classifying everything - they're suffocating the word feminism and what it's supposed to mean.

I was looking at an online profile the other day and the young person in question's account amounted to 'I'm a transectional bi-queer feminist who dislikes cis men'. I had to look it up to really try and figure out what such a statement even meant. These terms didn't even exist in common language until relatively recently.

Most women, people even, I know are feminists in the sense that they believe in equality between the sexes....but the very word feminism has become synonymous with crazed loons who are more interested in hating men than the promotion of equality.

Grayson

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

There is a hardcore element that take it to the extreme and seem to be obsessed with the notion of labels and classifying everything - they're suffocating the word feminism and what it's supposed to mean.

I was looking at an online profile the other day and the young person in question's account amounted to 'I'm a transectional bi-queer feminist who dislikes cis men'. I had to look it up to really try and figure out what such a statement even meant. These terms didn't even exist in common language until relatively recently.

Most women, people even, I know are feminists in the sense that they believe in equality between the sexes....but the very word feminism has become synonymous with crazed loons who are more interested in hating men than the promotion of equality.

A lot of it has to do with the social media world we live in. Take US republicans. Most are probably lovely people but it's the bat**** crazy ones that end up in your news feed. We live in a world of clickbait so it makes sense that the most outspoken weirdo's of any group will get the most publicity. People talking rationally about republicanism/feminism/any-ism are not as exciting.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

I judge arguments based on merit, I wont dismiss a good argument however if Dulally or Bindel or some other feminist writes a big article Ill be on the lookout for BS. Nothing wrong there

And the only good feminist argument you've ever heard is feminism in Islam?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And the only good feminist argument you've ever heard is feminism in Islam?

a very broad question I dont know. Is there anything where the law needs to be changed in the west in general in favor of women?

Widdershins

Intersectional feminism is the crazy form..I think..

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

a very broad question I dont know.

Well I asked because you were the only one who could think I'd a modern example of a good feminist argument (the quote above about feminism in Islam). You also said you won't dismiss an argument based on merit but you can only think of one that has merit. I was just confirming what you said.

silverharp wrote:

I judge arguments based on merit, I wont dismiss a good argument however if Dulally or Bindel or some other feminist writes a big article Ill be on the lookout for BS. Nothing wrong there

silverharp wrote:

the feminist ones at the muslim conference in france I think. the aim was good but they are batsh1t in their methods, Maryam Namazie has done good stuff in the UK over women in Islam. I cant think of any others that have merit, [...]/quote]

silverharp wrote:

Is there anything where the law needs to be changed in the west in general in favor of women?

In beginning to see where you keep going wrong with this stuff. Why would I want to discuss laws that at need to be changed ,just to benefit women?

I already mentioned that I think we need to discuss the meaning of consent and when consent can/can't be given. Is there such thing as implied consent? Those are just questions and either way, it's not just a woman issue.

I think the laws should address an imbalance in the court system (sentences and custody in particular).

I think the sex industry is another good example that could use laws but that isn't just a woman's issue either.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well I asked because you were the only one who could think I'd a modern example of a good feminist argument (the quote above about feminism in Islam). You also said you won't dismiss an argument based on merit but you can only think of one that has merit. I was just confirming what you said.



the feminist ones at the muslim conference in france I think. the aim was good but they are batsh1t in their methods, Maryam Namazie has done good stuff in the UK over women in Islam. I cant think of any others that have merit,



In beginning to see where you keep going wrong with this stuff. Why would I want to discuss laws that at need to be changed ,just to benefit women?

I already mentioned that I think we need to discuss the meaning of consent and when consent can/can't be given. Is there such thing as implied consent? Those are just questions and either way, it's not just a woman issue.

I think the laws should address an imbalance in the court system (sentences and custody in particular).

I think the sex industry is another good example that could use laws but that isn't just a woman's issue either.

we changed laws in the past that hampered women or introduced laws to protect women like the equal pay act. I just want to confirm that there is no glaring inequality that the legal system can "fix" that hamper women. Ok we agree that the courts more likely privilege women in certain areas but feminism is not interested in this so if you cared about it you are in the wrong movement.
prostitution is an issue in particular the trafficking element. Feminism as such doesn't have a coherent position on it though?. the issue is more about working out causes and effect, if X is done will it lead to more or less trafficking so its more a utilitarian argument

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Ok we agree that the courts more likely privilege women in certain areas but feminism is not interested in this so if you cared about it you are in the wrong movement.

I'm interested in the courts issue and I'm feminist.

Movement? Are we both part of movements?

silverharp wrote:

prostitution is an issue in particular the trafficking element. Feminism as such doesn't have a coherent position on it though?. the issue is more about working out causes and effect, if X is done will it lead to more or less trafficking so its more a utilitarian argument

What would feminism need a coherent position. Someone might view all feminists as a homogenous group with the same thoughts and arguments, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm interested in the courts issue and I'm feminist.

Movement? Are we both part of movements?

Feminism has not put itself out on this issue or we might have heard about it in the media
Im not part of any movement, my interest in this is as a Dad to a son. I'm just on the lookout for movements that might unfairly treat him by influencing the public space in divisive ways

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What would feminism need a coherent position. Someone might view all feminists as a homogenous group with the same thoughts and arguments, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

there are some issues that feminists are broadly in agreement with but there are going to be 2 wings here right?, women have a right to be prostitutes versus all prostitution is rape or some such wording. You don't need to be a feminist to have an interest in reducing trafficking which is obviously criminal but its great if feminists to contribute to the area of trafficking.

Dravokivich

Why do people always first think about trafficking, when the question of prostitution comes up?

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

Feminism has not put itself out on this issue or we might have heard about it in the media

It's a gender inequality issue. Of course it's a matter of feminism. I'm feminist, telling you it's an issue for me and your response is to say that feminism 'hasn't put itself out on this issue'. Unless you mean feminism as a homogenous group? But I understand you to not see feminist as a homogenous group. Your position is confusing

silverharp wrote:

Im not part of any movement, my interest in this is as a Dad to a son. I'm just on the lookout for movements that might unfairly treat him by influencing the public space in divisive ways

Grand so you're not part of a movement. Why are you telling me about my movement memberships then?

silverharp wrote:

there are some issues that feminists are broadly in agreement with but there are going to be 2 wings here right?, women have a right to be prostitutes versus all prostitution is rape or some such wording. You don't need to be a feminist to have an interest in reducing trafficking which is obviously criminal but its great if feminists to contribute to the area of trafficking.

Only 2 bodies of opinion? The world isn't that black and white. I think your characterisation of the situation reflects your broad view that feminism is definitionally, gender argumemts that you don't agree with.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's a gender inequality issue. Of course it's a matter of feminism. I'm feminist, telling you it's an issue for me and your response is to say that feminism 'hasn't put itself out on this issue'. Unless you mean feminism as a homogenous group? But I understand you to not see feminist as a homogenous group. Your position is confusing

feminists show no motivation to fix inequalities the other way. It acts like a union and when has a union ever offered to give anything back? I'll judge feminists by their actions . the fact that you as a individual profess that its important to you is meaningless.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Grand so you're not part of a movement. Why are you telling me about my movement memberships then?

you are the one defending feminism here so you are the feminist or male feminist whatever you are.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Only 2 bodies of opinion? The world isn't that black and white. I think your characterisation of the situation reflects your broad view that feminism is definitionally, gender argumemts that you don't agree with.

sure there is a spectrum clearly , my own view is that it shouldn't be a criminal matter but that trafficking should be clamped down on and that vulnerable kids mostly girls but I assume some boys to should not be exploited in particular if they are in the care system, I assume that view would broadly be accepted by many feminists.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

feminists show no motivation to fix inequalities the other way. It acts like a union and when has a union ever offered to give anything back? I'll judge feminists by their actions .

So feminists aren't a homogeneous group, instead they behave like a union? Very confusing position.

silverharp wrote:

the fact that you as a individual profess that its important to you is meaningless.

Yeah I get what you're saying. You dont class this as a feminist issue because you agree with it. This was what i was saying earlier about defining feminism is as things with which you don't agree. Now my holding this position is meaningless unless the feminist 'union' joins in?

silverharp wrote:

you are the one defending feminism here so you are the feminist or male feminist whatever you are.

I haven't offered to defend feminism. I said I was feminist and had a load of charges laid against me. The rest of the book is I talked about have been individual feminist positions I hold. Some posters have assumed a whole back story for me I thought you were cleverer than that.

silverharp wrote:

sure there is a spectrum clearly , my own view is that it shouldn't be a criminal matter but that trafficking should be clamped down on and that vulnerable kids mostly girls but I assume some boys to should not be exploited in particular if they are in the care system, I assume that view would broadly be accepted by many feminists.

I imagine most feminists would support that position. Do you consider it a feminist natter?

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So feminists aren't a homogeneous group, instead they behave like a union? Very confusing position.

again just by sensing of what is important to feminists based on what they argue for in the media/online. Zip on rowing back on female privilege so essentially its a supremacist movement not an egalitarian movement.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I imagine most feminists would support that position. Do you consider it a feminist natter?

I would consider it an issue that feminists might be interested in and they are free to roll in on it, Im just saying you don't have to be a feminist to come to the same conclusion, women that don't label themselves as feminists might have similar positions

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

again just by sensing of what is important to feminists based on what they argue for in the media/online. Zip on rowing back on female privilege so essentially its a supremacist movement not an egalitarian movement.

Do you count me amongst that supremacist feminist movement?

silverharp wrote:

I would consider it an issue that feminists might be interested in and they are free to roll in on it, Im just saying you don't have to be a feminist to come to the same conclusion, women that don't label themselves as feminists might have similar positions

But not a feminists movement, as such? Are you sure there's no as hoc decision on what's feminist and what isn't, based on whether you agree with it or not? It would be a huge coincidence if you just happen to objectively find each and every feminist issue is fundamentally flawed.

If the feminists do behave like a union, wouldn't they pick some decent fights that everyone can get behind? Genuine accusations of sexual harassment in the work place and the like. Like the fella at fox news, Roger Ailes. He was allegedly propositioning staff with promotion in exchange for continued sexual favours at times of his choosing, and using disclosure agreements to hush it up.

Sexual harassment is a gender issue, a sexual issue and an employment issue and a legal issue (use of disclosure agreements to cover crimes). They're all feminist issues and I see the case above as a feminist issue. And case which could have important knock on affects.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you count me amongst that supremacist feminist movement?

maybe a useful idiot for them

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But not a feminists movement, as such? Are you sure there's no as hoc decision on what's feminist and what isn't, based on whether you agree with it or not? It would be a huge coincidence if you just happen to objectively find each and every feminist issue is fundamentally flawed.

If the feminists do behave like a union, wouldn't they pick some decent fights that everyone can get behind? Genuine accusations of sexual harassment in the work place and the like. Like the fella at fox news, Roger Ailes. He was allegedly propositioning staff with promotion in exchange for continued sexual favours at times of his choosing, and using disclosure agreements to hush it up.

Sexual harassment is a gender issue, a sexual issue and an employment issue and a legal issue (use of disclosure agreements to cover crimes). They're all feminist issues and I see the case above as a feminist issue. And case which could have important knock on affects.

and sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal or at least something from which a legal case can be brought. so as far as that issue goes feminists might want to highlight individual cases which is fine.

however compare that to "the wage gap" only a feminist would have the talking point that women only earn 76c on the dollar to a man and think its down to sexism. everyone else would come at it from a different perspective, highlighting choice, career choices etc.

Jesus.

Bebopclown wrote: »

Personally I really don't trust anyone who calls themselves a male feminist.

I don't think there can be any such thing tbh

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote:

maybe a useful idiot for them

Keep it above the belt, eh?

silverharp wrote:

and sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal or at least something from which a legal case can be brought. so as far as that issue goes feminists might want to highlight individual cases which is fine.

The aspects if the case are all feminist issues. It's as much s feminist issue as a criminal issue.

silverharp wrote:

however compare that to "the wage gap" only a feminist would have the talking point that women only earn 76c on the dollar to a man and think its down to sexism. everyone else would come at it from a different perspective, highlighting choice, career choices etc.

So it's a feminist only issue as long as it's gender related and you can lasso all the people who propose it together.

Don't you think it's odd that you can find no end of fault in all the feminist only issues without finding much significant fault in any of the men's rights issues? It could be coincidence, or great judgement. What do you think it is?