Tbf, some feminists do hate men.
Most women.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
That’s why you have all these far right influencers scooping up young guys and feeding them all the validation they aren’t getting in a positive way from the society around them.
Idk I don’t have a solution but I do have a little boy and trying to teach him to navigate the world keeps me awake at night.
It creates such a weird environment because women bashing men has become a very socially accepted if not encouraged thing. In some cases that’s not bad, but it’s putting young men just emerging into a world of social media in a position where they feel they’re being viewed as the bad guy.
Women: treat young men like they’re an asshole by default
Men: act like an asshole because they’re treated like one regardless
Women: 😧
They used to just be on the Internet, but that brainrot is reaching gen z. Half of my younger female coworkers openly talk shit about men.(then pull the “oh I don’t mean you” card when I give them the side eye. Like that’s less offensive)
Tons of men I’ve known endlessly talk shit about women. It’s a standard feature of our species to talk shit about the opposite gender. It’s a standard of our species to talk shit in general really.
Talking shit about a person is one thing, grouping people into categories and denigrating or dehumanizing the whole category is another.
I’m not saying either are good, but the whole grouping people and creating an us vs them attitude is very harmful to society. Much more than talking shit about Joe because he’s being a dick. There are very few situations where it’s useful such as when one group by its definition harms the other, such as slave owners, corporate executives with a fiduciary duty for profit over employees and customers, etc… In any situation where there is nuance it’s best to avoid making groups.
Hate misandry or misogyny without projecting it as a feature common to all men or women or feminists even if you feel a large portion of them exhibit that feature.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as “don’t talk to cops”.
I’ve seen other men giving me answers to questions my wife asked to many times. Of course thats not dangerous, but thats still asshole-behaviour and you can recognise a whole lot of this behaviour everyday, if you just listen to your female coworkers instead of giving them the side eye. They probably wouldn’t feel the need to “not-you” you, if they KNEW you are not a possible asshole.
If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as “don’t talk to cops”.
No, it’s not life insurance. It’s pathological paranoia that doesn’t effectively improve one’s safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.
If you’re not making any distinction between “belittling and straight up murder”, then you’re really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn’t make them dangerous.
The fear of men is vastly over exaggerated. Men are still far more likely to be assaulted or murdered than women. Even when women are attacked, it’s rarely a stranger.
Some black people commit crimes. Some asian people are bad drivers. Some hispanics are illegal immigrants coming to steal your jobs.
If you judge everything based on a minority example, everyone around you is gonna have a bad time.
You’re comparing race to ideology. Not a fair comparison.
You can choose to be (or not to be) a feminist. You can’t choose your race.
No, their point is about people thinking all people of a group have a characteristic because some of them do.
If a black person robs your house and he says “I robbed your house because I’m black”, you’re gonna hate black people because they commit crimes. The thing is, no one says “I robbed your house because I’m black” because it doesn’t make sense and it’s not true.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about. Specially considering that the “I hate men” feminists are very loud.
The name doesn’t make it easier though. This doesn’t happen in English, but in spanish (my language) when a man does sexism it’s called “machismo”. And we say “machismo” way more often than “sexismo”. To someone unaware, “feminist” seems like “the women version of machismo”.
In my opinion we should stop using the term “feminism” and change to a more accurate term that isn’t misleading. In the western modern society (not the USA, abortion banning troglodytes) women don’t really need that radical of change anymore, we’re almost there in gender equality, can’t risk going back by making young men afraid of the movement just because the name is no longer accurate.
However, the feminists that hate men do say “I hate men because I’m feminist”, which make a lot of men think that feminism is about hating men, before they have to chance to learn what feminism is really about.
Then maybe they should stop wallowing in ignorance and listen to something other than an extreme. It’s still their choice to react rather than think about their positions. Making someone else change because you’re too scared to do it first is lazy and cheap. There’s no way to scream a rational position like there is an extreme position, and you’re never going to get rid of them by reacting as they do.
Stop using them as an excuse for your unwillingness to change. They’re not at fault for your choices.
This is true, but it’s just like how the alt-right morphed. With the internet these days, and with social media more specifically, there are these identities wherein people try to out-____ each other: out-“leftist” each other, out-“conservative” each other, etc. So, with feminism, people wanted to “out feminist” the other feminists. For strangers. On the internet. To think they’re more hardcore. It’s fuckin dumb, but it’s fuckin everywhere, and within every ideology. You think women deserve equal rights? Well I believe women deserve REPARATIONS! You think women deserve reparations? Well, I hate MEN!
Similarly: “you think we should stop immigration? Well I think we should kill all non whites!”
No ideology is immune. I’ve seen it in every circle.
There will always be idiots, trying to claim an ideology for their own image, and who utterly misunderstand the idea itself. To be fair, though, some of those people just have really personal reasons for being drawn to an idea in the first place, and their emotions get the best of them. However, that doesn’t excuse the behavior. Because racists use the same logic. “I was robbed by black men…BLACK MEN ARE ALL CRIMINALS!” It’s boiler plate prejudice. Those feminists that hate men are falling into the same trap as racists. They generalize and slip under the current of hate. Now, it’s hard to start at the same place, because feminism has some logical backbone while racism doesn’t. But the catalyst is the same: prejudice and hate.
Yeah, some feminists hate men, but they’re small minded people who like the concept of claiming an ideology for themselves and who bastardize and undercut the goals. It’s sad, but it’s true. And it’s everywhere. The problem with it is that people who dislike the original, sound idea, will use those idiots as effigies to paint the entire idea with the worst brush available. It’s a shame.
I hate it, I consider myself a feminist because I want to claw the term back, not give it up to some assholes. It’s feminist to give men grace and understanding because vulnerability isn’t a feminine trait, it’s a human one. It’s feminists to demand paternity leave because new mothers shouldn’t be carrying the entire weight of child rearing along with a job while men are obligated to miss formative years of their child’s existence. Etc, etc
I wish I could push that message and blot out all the genuine misandrists (who almost invariably are also transphobic), but it’s an uphill battle when the assholes on the other side only give voice to those people to prove their point.
I’m sure some do, but I’ve seen more examples of feminists who hate certain subsets of women then I have ones who hate men.
SPLITTERS!!!
I do find the idea of saying TERFs come across as stupid as some absurd Monty Python characters delightful.
But on the other hand, John Cleese has shared some transphobic views in the past, so using his work may not hurt the TERFs’ feelings as hoped.
I mean don’t the majority of feminists decry the mere concept of men’s rights activists though?
That red pill movie was very eye opening to me. Not just the movie itself, but the reaction to its mere existence.
Seems to be a good litmus test though, if you don’t support the men’s rights groups as a concept then your maybe less egalitarian than you think.
I think it’s worth differentiating between men’s rights and men’s liberation.
Men’s rights organizations are often interested in advocating against legitimate issue in the courts system, lack of assistance for male victims of abuse and more. However, some bad actors have used it as a smokescreen to roll back the gains feminism has made for women. Some going so far as to demand violence.
Men’s liberation on the other hand is more about becoming healthier people with good relationships. It’s about divorcing our expectations for ourselves from societies expectations for men and by extension changing what it means to be a man in society.
Both movements I think have value but I don’t think it’s surprising that many feminists side eye men’s rights orgs.
I tend to agree, but it’s the mirror image of modern feminism IMO. Plenty of bad actors there too as well.
It would be great if they could co-exist, but I honestly think in comparison, the societal level opinion of a group that supports the rights and causes of men is viewed much less favourably across the board, since they are viewed as on of the most privileged classes.
Real issue is egalitarianism is a horrible word, and there is still value in groups having a more narrow focus.
I suppose it’s the same issue on the other side. I have a hard time believing that MRAs are not just the misogynist assholes I see vocally supporting the movement, maybe the same as people have a hard time believing feminism isn’t just the “political lesbianism” TERFs they see online.
That’s the myth I routinely have to bust to guys I meet who hate feminists. I ask if they think women should have the right to vote. When they yes, I say that’s feminism. It’s simplistic and I usually follow up with other basic rights until I get to the contemporary issues. I say that if they want all that stuff then they are also feminists. Their reaction after this depends on how entrenched or how stupid they are.
“Feminism” is just a sloppy term. It’s “egalitarianism”: people deserve rights, your demographic shouldn’t decrease your rights. Those who you’re referring to when you use the term “feminists” will insist upon this interpretation, for good reason.
“Feminism”, as a term, conjures images of the uplifting of women, which was a potent image when women weren’t allowed to vote or work most jobs. Now, with many of those low-hanging battles won, equality is largely the case, and the image of uplifting women feels a lot more like favoritism and bias than leveling the field.
Yes there are gender specific issues, but those exist in both directions much more equally than when the “feminism” label was solidified. The goal should not be to uplift women, the goal should be to trivialize the influence of gender and sex on the involuntary conditions of life. When that results in the uplifting of women, great. But men face struggles intrinsic to being men too, and naming your egalitarian movement after femininity only deepens the divide with marginalized men.
Yeah, but no. To refuse the term feminism is like to say “white lives matter too”. Of course men deserve rights, and of course white lives matter too. But white people and men don’t need to fight for themselves.
Swing and a miss, mate. Many people who have a problem with the name feminism are nonbinary people, who want equality but have been excluded from the movement by enbyphobic women, AKA TERFs. While there are lots of feminists who say feminism also means uplifting enbies, some enbies feel misgendered by this terminology, and reality is nonetheless more complicated. But your comment reducing every opponent of the term to male privilege is perfectly symbolic of the nonbinary exclusionism practiced by many who use the term feminism, and demonstrates exactly why some nonbinary people have a problem.
I don’t think feminism is the wrong word in this case. The way men are harmed by patriarchy is directly related to how women are understood as lesser. Male only drafts, male worth based on possession of women, unequal familial rights, and harmful beliefs about men’s emotion all exists as ways to subjugate women.
For the draft and emotions, men’s “violent nature” is cultivated because “we have to protect the women.” The only emotion you allowed to have is righteous anger used to defend women. This dynamic ties neatly into men as predators. Men are naturally violent, look at how that violence protects the women, but when improperly raised they become monsters.
Men often feel as though they have no social standing if they haven’t had sex with a woman. The way that relationship is framed is often conquest and power rather than mutual connection and understanding. The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Unequal family rights are directly related to the societal expectation that women are the primary care givers. Which frequently results in women working full time jobs, taking care of the children, and taking care of the house.
I don’t think the term feminism is really the problem. Billions of dollars have been spent by right wing billionaires to control this narrative. It’s no wonder young people have a skewed perception of what feminism is. I don’t think changing the term to gender equality really would have helped much.
The truth is men would benefit far more from connection, understanding, and knowing that they can have social standing beyond fucking somebody.
Please stop viewing men as defective women. Maybe fucking somebody is more important than you think. Maybe the problem is that instead of supporting men we’re telling them to stop wanting the things they want.
Except that that is the theoretical definition of feminism. Modern radical feminism (what we see around us) is hardly that
“what we see around us” – where? there are very few “modern radical feminists” in real life, they’re all on shitty youtubros’ channels and weird conservatives’ twitter feeds. i guarantee you’ve met a ton of feminists without even knowing, hell a lot of your childhood idols and role models were probably feminists (there are a lot more self-identified feminist role models than you may think).
specifically focusing on the distinction between “modern feminism” and “previous feminism” is a conservative talking point that has unfortunately made its way into common internet culture, there is nothing less righteous about the modern feminist/equality movement than before – although there are bad parts of it which still exist like TERFs. “it was okay before, but now i can’t tolerate it” is basically what righties say whenever a movement threatens the hierarchy too much and they want to make it seem “radical” and therefore “bad”. the reality is that the past of the feminist movement has had many flaws and a lot of bigotry (especially in the context of LGBT), which “modern” feminists have made significant improvements on.
And in doing so, they drill the idea of “men are at fault for existing” down the brains of little boys. I have said this before and I will keep saying it: feminism was defined as promoting women’s equality with relation to men, but it’s now about the equity women can get from men
So then do you think women’s right to their own body is not an issue we should be concerned about today? Assuming you’re from the US.
It’s easy to fall into motte-and-bailey reasoning though. The motte is an easily defended simple thing most people agree with. The bailey is a controversial thing you want to advance. If the bailey is debated, you can retreat into the motte and make claims that it’s simple and uncontroversial. Most ideologies or systems of thought have a core that many people agree with, and then that’s taken as approval of all its extrapolations. For example, do you believe that people should be able to decide what they use their money for? Well, then you must agree with laissez-faire neo-liberalism. Do you want children to be safe online? Then you agree that the government should inspect all your communication. Do you want everyone to be equal? Then you must agree with everything the soviet union did.
With feminism, it’s easy to defend the core ideas, but it also encompasses implementations like affirmative action which not everyone agrees with, and practices that are not about dismantling hierarchies but rather just “wanting a better seat at the table of tyranny”, to quote White Lotus.
On a personal level, I work in a female dominated workplace, where women hold all the positions of power. There’s a lot of remarks and actions that would absolutely not be ok if the genders were reversed. A constant flow of explanations why men are stupid, sexualizing male workers, “playful” sexual harassment, ridiculing men etc. Many of them are self-proclaimed feminists. And it’s cheered on and praised as a form of “girl power”. If you ask me to identify as a feminist, these are the people I think of.
I have struggled a lot with setting boundaries and not letting myself be taken advantage of, so I’m very reluctant to be a part of something that requires self-flagellation over which group of people I belong to. I agree with the core of feminism, but to call myself a feminist I’d like my voice to be as welcome as a womans voice, which is rarely the case in my experience.
I’m sorry that you’re in that situation and it doesn’t sound like they are true feminists to me.
We all live in our own little bubbles; they may not be true feminists to you, but they sound quite consistent with the people around me who describe themselves as feminists. A significant portion of feminist activists in my online bubble also seem to subscribe to the same ideas.
There’s a bit of… something, irony maybe, in my experience that I’m trying to be aware of. I can’t judge a movement by the not-true-feminists while feeling hurt that I’m judged by what other men have done. Maybe there’s a difference between an ideological label and a gender, but still. It’s this generalization that feels similar. I know that when I am given compassion I am much more likely to care about others. And vice versa. Maybe I need to look past the loud not-true-feminists and try harder to see the points of the true feminists. Maybe they need to look past bad men and not treat me as a villain by default. It’s this stalemate I feel locked into.
“Kill all men”
- the average feminist, advocating female supremacy and male genocide.
“The future must be in female hands, women alone must control the reproduction of species; and only 10% of the population should be allowed to be male “
- Sally Miller Gearhart, feminist icon of the 20th century, advocating female supremacy and the violent eradication of most males.
As in all extremist organizations, moderates have zero power. They are there purely as window dressing and cannon fodder and to give the movement a wafer-thin veneer of legitimacy and respectability. It is the tail - the extremists - that wags the dog. And feminism has shown their hatred of men far more than any love of them.
So what you’re saying is that you, a commenter using a username on an internet forum are the true feminist, and the feminists actually responsible for changing the laws, writing the academic theory, teaching the courses, influencing the public policies, and the massive, well-funded feminist organizations with thousands and thousands of members all of whom call themselves feminists… they are not “real feminists”.
That’s not just “no true Scotsman”. That’s delusional self deception.
Listen, if you want to call yourself a feminist, I don’t care. I’ve been investigating feminism for more than 9 years now, and people like you used to piss me off, because to my mind all you were doing was providing cover and ballast for the powerful political and academic feminists you claim are just jerks. And believe me, they ARE jerks. If you knew half of what I know about the things they’ve done under the banner of feminism, maybe you’d stop calling yourself one.
But I want you to know. You don’t matter. You’re not the director of the Feminist Majority Foundation and editor of Ms. Magazine, Katherine Spillar, who said of domestic violence: “Well, that’s just a clean-up word for wife-beating,” and went on to add that regarding male victims of dating violence, “we know it’s not girls beating up boys, it’s boys beating up girls.”
You’re not Jan Reimer, former mayor of Edmonton and long-time head of Alberta’s Network of Women’s Shelters, who just a few years ago refused to appear on a TV program discussing male victims of domestic violence, because for her to even show up and discuss it would lend legitimacy to the idea that they exist.
You’re not Mary P Koss, who describes male victims of female rapists in her academic papers as being not rape victims because they were “ambivalent about their sexual desires” (if you don’t know what that means, it’s that they actually wanted it), and then went on to define them out of the definition of rape in the CDC’s research because it’s inappropriate to consider what happened to them rape.
You’re not the National Organization for Women, and its associated legal foundations, who lobbied to replace the gender neutral federal Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 with the obscenely gendered Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The passing of that law cut male victims out of support services and legal assistance in more than 60 passages, just because they were male.
You’re not the Florida chapter of the NOW, who successfully lobbied to have Governor Rick Scott veto not one, but two alimony reform bills in the last ten years, bills that had passed both houses with overwhelming bipartisan support, and were supported by more than 70% of the electorate.
You’re not the feminist group in Maryland who convinced every female member of the House on both sides of the aisle to walk off the floor when a shared parenting bill came up for a vote, meaning the quorum could not be met and the bill died then and there.
You’re not the feminists in Canada agitating to remove sexual assault from the normal criminal courts, into quasi-criminal courts of equity where the burden of proof would be lowered, the defendant could be compelled to testify, discovery would go both ways, and defendants would not be entitled to a public defender.
You’re not Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, who wrote a book advocating that women not only have the right to murder their husbands without fear of prosecution if they make a claim of abuse, but that they have the moral responsibility to murder their husbands.
You’re not the feminist legal scholars and advocates who successfully changed rape laws such that a woman’s history of making multiple false allegations of rape can be excluded from evidence at trial because it’s “part of her sexual history.”
You’re not the feminists who splattered the media with the false claim that putting your penis in a passed-out woman’s mouth is “not a crime” in Oklahoma, because the prosecutor was incompetent and charged the defendant under an inappropriate statute (forcible sodomy) and the higher court refused to expand the definition of that statute beyond its intended scope when there was already a perfectly good one (sexual battery) already there. You’re not the idiot feminists lying to the public and potentially putting women in Oklahoma at risk by telling potential offenders there’s a “legal” way to rape them.
And you’re none of the hundreds or thousands of feminist scholars, writers, thinkers, researchers, teachers and philosophers who constructed and propagate the body of bunkum theories upon which all of these atrocities are based.
You’re the true feminist. Some random person on the internet.
- GirlWritesWhat, on feminism, 2017-05-02
So feminism “not about hating men”?? Yeah, my big fat hirsute arse. That’s some top-tier bovine excrement in spin control.
the average feminist
Hold on just a fucking minute. The misandrists are fringe, never forget that. The great mass of feminists - and women more generally - do not hate men. I say this as someone who’s been calling out feminism, check my post history. I’m not a feminist, I have my issues with feminism, but don’t fall into the trap of thinking they all believe that.
Polarization doesn’t help anyone. Both groups are suffering as they retreat further and further into their own in-groups. It sucks and it takes a lot of conscious effort on all parties’ part to overcome. And unreciprocated effort feels awful and risks pushing people away at an even faster rate.
I’m not sure we’re really equipped, as a society/species to overcome that effort barrier given our current information diet (infinite) and our stupid monkey brains (very limited).
Yeah, it’s hard talking people out of Andrew tate positions when it’s so easy to point to reactionary hate and so hard to find nuanced opinions.
We really need to get to the point we recognize everyone as human and acknowledge that means we’re all flawed and biased and needy, and that’s OK because that’s what life is.
It also helps when we can learn to not take things personally. I know it would help because I have such a hard time with that. It is one of my fatal flaws. It is something I suspect I’ll always struggle with because no amount of self rationalization ever prevents that next episode of being generalized negatively and feeling personally attacked.
We’re all just pushin’ our boulder up a hill, eh?
