I am a man, and feminist, and have spoken with many other feminists over the years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism, etc. In my experience I'd say less than 1% of feminism/feminists have anything to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, but I'm hard-pressed to come up with any other serious examples.
If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.
Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.
Men should not have any reproductive rights.
Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.
Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.
Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.
Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.
Men cannot discuss their issues in a public forum without feminist protestors shutting down discussions.
If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.
If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.
Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.
Oh my word. Not saying I agree with all of them 100%, but you have utterly misconstrued the arguments.
> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.
Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.
> Men are violent.
The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.
> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.
If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.
> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.
Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.
> Men should not have any reproductive rights.
A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.
> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.
Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.
> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.
There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.
> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.
Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.
> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.
Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.
> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.
Characters are often designed by men, for men.
> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.
Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.
> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.
>> Men are rapists and sexual offenders by default.
> Nope, the argument is that there is a societal pattern that devalues the severity of rape through humour and other cultural tropes.
"Teach men not to rape."
"Teach your sons to respect women."
>> Men are violent.
> The patriarchal "masculinity" foisted upon men is one that is competitive and aggressive.
Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.
>> If a man finds a woman physically attractive then he is objectifying her.
> If you see a woman only existing as to please your sexual appetite, you are objecting.
Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.
>> Men should not be paid according to the merits of their work and ability.
> Women should be paid according to the merits of their work and ability, along with men.
No arguments there. Unfortunately "positive discrimination" (an oxymoron I see as often as "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism") says otherwise.
>> Men should not have any reproductive rights.
> A woman's body is hers to do with as she should wish. Nobody should have operations forced upon them.
I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".
>> Men should continue paying for a woman's lifestyle after a divorce.
> Due to the fact that often a carer role is taken by a woman in a patriarchal society, this means that her earning potential and career is sacrificed.
Again, "patriarchy" as a concept is farcical, and you're completely ignoring a woman's own personal responsibilities. You can either argue that women should be treated as equals, or that they should be treated like children in need of constant care, not both.
Also, men are not your personal ATM machines. If you see a man as only existing to please your handbag appetite, you are objectifying them.
>> Men should recognize their "privilege" and be constantly reminded of it, even though being told you should be ashamed of your gender is at the very heart of sexism.
> There are advantages that men get because of their sex/gender, and these should be recognised.
You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".
>> Men should not be allowed into women's "safe spaces", implying they are dangerous and intimidating by default. Similarly, men should not be allowed to have their own "safe spaces", because that's sexist and exclusionary.
> Due to many women having suffered terrible experiences at the hands of men, and the tendency for men to dominate discussions, there needs to be a place away from that where people can talk without fear and interruption.
Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
>> Men cannot have body issues resulting from over-exaggerated muscle-bound heroes in cartoons and movies (He-Man and the like) because they represent a "male power fantasy". But Barbie is responsible for decades of female self-image issues.
> Not sure about that one, I think the argument drastically varies, but men are more often portrayed in a powerful, dominant role.
So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?
>> If a female character chooses to dress provocatively, it is because a man chose to objectify her, not because a woman can take charge of their own sexuality.
> Characters are often designed by men, for men.
Bayonetta was developed by a woman. Women are allowed to be sexual if they please, and even if the character is designed by a man, ignoring the potential for sexuality in a woman's personality would result in one-dimensional and frankly unrelatable characters.
The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.
>> If a man is harassed online, it's unfortunate (sometimes). If a woman is harassed online, it's representative of a disturbing trend. Similarly, men cannot understand the plight of a woman's harassment, even if said man also receives daily death threats and has had a gun fired through their living room window.
> Yes because receiving some flame or smack is the same as constant rape threats.
You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.
>> Men should receive much harsher punishments than women for committing the same crimes.
> Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.
This is true! The thing is, most feminists I've met also believe this. When people complain about 'objectification', they are not complaining that someone might find them physically attractive at all--it's the patterns of behavior and speech which some/many men exhibit which clearly show that they are not valued beyond their physical appearance or are primarily valued for their physical appearance.
> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".
There are some fundamental challenges to 'perfect equality' w.r.t. reproduction. I don't think any feminist platform I'm aware of suggests that men should not be able to put forward their feelings on adoption/abortion when they are the father and in a relationship with the mother: simply that the father in those situations doesn't have the final say and should not have the final say, particularly w.r.t. abortion. Things get significantly more complex after a child is born, and I don't know many feminists who think the current situation is ideal either. (That the mother is primarily responsible for the child, or that the mother almost always gets custody in a custody battle. That isn't equality either.)
> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?
Male incidence of eating disorders is, as I recall, actually heavily underreported (partially b/c of how it manifests, partially for other reasons), but I don't know many nonradical feminists who claim that male self image issues are not a problem--simply that given our current societal norms and values, women's appearance is more heavily focused on then men's... and that is an issue perpetuated by things like Barbie. I'd strongly disagree with the original sentiment, but I also haven't met any recent feminist claiming that and don't believe it's part of any particular non-radical platform.
> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.
This is the entire point of sex positive feminism. I don't think any sex positive feminists have argued that female characters shouldn't be allowed to have any sexuality--just that they are often portrayed in unrealistic ways that are designed to appeal to male fantasies. I'm not familiar with Bayonetta, but from looking at google images, at least from her exaggerated appearance, impractical clothing, etc. I'd say that she may very well qualify. (It's also just as possible for women to design unrealistic characters which appeal to male fantasies as it is for men--nobody I know has claimed that every woman is by necessity a perfect feminist.)
> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
No feminist I know has said "Men should not be allowed safe spaces", particularly not "Men who are survivors of abuse should not be allowed safe spaces." Every feminist woman I know would be 100% behind these getting set up by men who felt they needed them: perhaps it would be better to ask why they are not getting set up by men who need them? This is actually of personal interest to me, because I would have greatly benefited from one (as a male survivor of abuse who has been diagnosed with PTSD) had one existed in the past.
> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.
Cases of men getting serious threats to their person is, as you said, 'unfortunate'. (I'd take a stronger stance and say it's pretty bad.) That is, however, different from the recent trend of women who have been harassed, doxxed, received rape threats, etc. for publicly expressing feminist viewpoints. If it did seem like a plausible trend existed in the harassment of men, I'd be interested.
The statistics there don't actually prove that point... it's definitely possible that women simply commit fewer crimes, less serious crimes, or are caught less often. That being said, let us presume that men do get, on average, longer sentences for the same crime (I think this is plausible): do you know of any feminists who are claiming that this should be the case? (Most I know are generally against the current prison system and rate of incarceration in the first place, for both men and women, so I'm not sure where your argument is here anyways.)
> No feminist I know has said "Men should not be allowed safe spaces", particularly not "Men who are survivors of abuse should not be allowed safe spaces." Every feminist woman I know would be 100% behind these getting set up by men who felt they needed them: perhaps it would be better to ask why they are not getting set up by men who need them?
Look up Erin Pizzey- she makes an excellent foundation for any research into this area. After founding the world's first women's shelter, she discovered in interviews that many (if not most) of her victims were also abusers themselves. She suggested opening a men's shelter, and was driven from her own movement- receiving death threats, and being forced from her home after he dog was shot and left at her door. IIRC, she said that it came down to money. It was easier to raise money for women than for men or even just people... And easier to control, too.
> do you know of any feminists who are claiming that [men should receive harsher punishments] should be the case?
My reading of that is that she wants nobody to be imprisoned, she just thinks that for various reasons, the argument is more realistic for women right now -- for instance, the far lower incarceration rate of women, and the otherwise-irrelevant practical reason that there's a O(number of incarcerated genders) monetary cost in prisons with a high constant factor. Getting all the women out of prison is a greater cost savings than getting the same number of men out, and easier than getting all the men out. But I don't see any indication that she thinks her arguments wouldn't apply to men as well: "Essentially, the case for closing women’s prisons is the same as the case for imprisoning fewer men."
You describe objectification as patterns of behaviors and speech. However, the most common use of that term I see these days refers to female characters in fiction and advertising. There is a gigantic difference between these two notions.
In a similar fashion, your entire post is misaligned with the kind of feminism I see on the daily basis.
Some small form of feminism may still be necessary in this day and age, but no meaningful progress can be made until the extremes of modern feminism are torn down.
> You describe objectification as patterns of behaviors and speech. However, the most common use of that term I see these days refers to female characters in fiction and advertising. There is a gigantic difference between these two notions.
This is true. Objectification is a complex subject with lots of potential targets: you can treat a person as a sexual object, you can portray/view a character as a sexual object, etc. In the context of that post, I was referring to specific complaints of flesh and blood women RE: being objectified. Objectification in fiction and advertising is a separate thing: characters who exist primarily to titillate a male audience's sexual desires would qualify... as would characters who exist primarily to titillate a female audience's sexual desires. (See: Magic Mike, Magic Mike XXL for really good examples of male characters who are pretty obviously objectified.)
To be completely honest: I don't have any serious problem with what I'd view to be pulp-y fiction or characters in the rough. (Hell, romance novel characters seriously qualify here too!) However, if it seemed like every male lead character in a genre primarily characterized by how they were "tall, dark, and handsome, with a bad boy streak and a heart of gold" then I'd probably get the message that the genre was not necessarily aimed at me or about characters I could relate to or find interesting. If that was true of all genres, or most popular works, then I'd probably get the message that I wasn't the audience for any genre, and perhaps even that men existed to be "tall dark and handsome" and should behave as "bad boys with a heart of gold". Being short and generally well behaved, I'd probably complain about unrealistic male characters who ride horses into the sunset and have perfect abs. Perhaps I'd even come to believe that I should wear platform shoes, work out all the time and never eat to get the abs I needed, start behaving like a bad boy, and learn how to ride horses so that I could meet a basic bar of manliness. Fortunately, that fantasy world that I just described doesn't exist for me, because romance novels are not the primary genre or what we base our societal expectations of men on, but replace "tall dark and handsome and a bad boy with a heart of gold" with "skinny, brunette, and buxom" and you begin to hit the issues that some women have with many video games.
> In a similar fashion, your entire post is misaligned with the kind of feminism I see on the daily basis.
The thing is, my post is aligned with the feminism I believe in and try to push forward. It's aligned with the feminism that I've heard expressed by my close friends, some of whom are activists for various feminist causes (equal job rights, etc.). That doesn't necessarily correspond with the loudest "feminist" voices on the internet (or tumblr), in the same way that someone like "Maddox" doesn't necessarily correspond to mainstream male views.
> Objectification is a complex subject with lots of potential targets: you can treat a person as a sexual object, you can portray/view a character as a sexual object, etc.
To me this sounds less like a product of a complex underlying notion and more like simple inconsistency created by equating fundamentally different things.
Characters are not people. They are fictional entities. Arguing that it is immoral to design them in a way that sets "unrealistic" examples of behavior attacks the foundational premise of fiction itself. There is no rational criteria that would make this a valid argument in regards to sexuality while sparing any other aspect of human behavior.
So yes, there are plenty of one-dimensional characters who are products of someone's fantasies, designed to appeal to a select audience. That's a design/writing issue, not moral/social issue. If you're arguing to the contrary, you're effectively demanding to edit all fiction to become a form of propaganda.
I got a little lost reading your comment. Are you saying that it's fine having unrealistic fictional characters because it has no bearing on the real world? If so, then first, humans use stories as a primary means of teaching moral behavior. Second, when it comes to movies the actors playing the characters are real people. I mean, just look at all the damage done by the fictional stories in holy books.
Are you saying that it's fine having unrealistic fictional characters because it has no bearing on the real world?
No, I think we should put anyone who creates unrealistic fictional characters in prison. Maximum security. Single confinement on weekends. Or maybe just shoot the bastards.
> Physical attraction alone does not disregard a person's humanity or personal agency.
Your argument is perfectly reasonable, it would be nice if other feminists understood the difference. In my experience, it is more often used as a spark for a larger confrontation or an excuse to bash males in general.
> I never said anything about forcing or denying abortions, only that a woman has the right to cede responsibility for reproduction whereas a man has none. If a woman chooses to abort or put a child up for adoption, she is well within her rights to do so. If a man suggests the same thing, he is a "deadbeat".
In an ideal world, a father would be told of the pregnancy immediately, and given the opportunity to absolve himself of responsibility for it. With this knowledge in hand, the mother would have the opportunity to decide to abort, give up for adoption, or keep the child with the understanding that there would be no (legally mandated) financial support from the father.
> So as long as an exaggerated body image is accompanied by power and dominance, it shouldn't place unfair expectations on impressionable viewers?
I most often see it as a corollary to arguments about the representation of women in movies/TV/video games. If the representation of a fictional woman is attacked for unrealistic standards, the rebuttal will be that the men are held to the same standards by male characters in the same space. Feminists then reply that it is a "male power fantasy" and does not count.
A perfect example, and most of the women's "before" representations aren't even unrealistic to begin with!
> The idea of sexuality as being negative is also unhealthy, for both genders.
A "sex positive" outlook would not care whether or not Bayonetta was designed by or for men. Bayonetta would have the inherent right to dress and behave as she pleases, with no care for the viewer's tastes.
> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.
You will also very likely be harassed and carry the "misogynist" label for the remainder of your tenure there. School newspapers will have carte blanche to drag your name through the mud in any way they can. An "example" will be made of you.
> You must have missed the part where I mentioned men also get serious threats to their person, and that there are documented cases where those threats have been acted upon.
Anyone, man or woman, that disagrees with feminist narratives, can be immediately and unquestionably be labelled a harasser and misogynist.
In case you don't care to listen to that SoundCloud, it involves a case where a man tries to remain a voice of reason in an online debate that has extremists on both sides, and because he adhered more strongly to ethical standards than "choosing a side" he was labeled the enemy. He has seen harassment and vitriol slung at him primarily from the "feminist" side, and even a great deal from people that could be considered celebrities. Those people will gladly attack him, and have absolutely no fear of reprisal for doing so.
The only time they face the consequences for their actions is when they upset their own compatriots. In those cases, they will not hesitate to turn on them like a pack of rabid dogs on an injured prey. But that is only the same hatred that is flung at men every day in that space.
This is a small example, however every time it's brought up it's immediately shut down by popular feminist voices.
"Longer prison sentences for men" is not a stated goal of feminism, but maintaining that status quo which greatly benefits women and greatly disadvantages men, is time and again strongly implied by their words and actions.
I feel like other people have said what I want to say about your other points, but...
> If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.
Interestingly, one of the longest running institutions at universities are fraternities.
I wouldn't use the term "women's center", but in many ways, sororities are examples of the "safe spaces" referenced in the sentence before:
> Men also can and do suffer terrible experiences as the hands of women, and can be dominated by them. If a woman gets "safe spaces", so, too, should men.
> Your argument is perfectly reasonable, it would be nice if other feminists understood the difference. In my experience, it is more often used as a spark for a larger confrontation or an excuse to bash males in general.
This may be a kind of blunt observation, but perhaps you see what you're looking for?
I don't think I've even met a single person, male or female, who seriously complained when someone (a) expressed interest in a reasonable way/place/situation and (b) was clearly willing to not continue if the person who had interest expressed in them did not reciprocate. Both (a) and (b) have had to be the case for all men and women I know to be comfortable with people's expression of interest: and its been my female friend's experience that men are generally much worse about both (a) and (b). Does that mean all men are bad at (a) and (b)? No. But most of my friends who're women have at least one story (usually many more) about a guy who was bad about both (a) and (b), and the incidence in friends who're men is much lower (although goes up again if you limit it to just my gay friends--turns out gay men are not necessarily magical wizards about being good at (a) and (b)). Taken out of context, a woman complaining about how several men have been bad at (a) and (b) in her life seems like something you'd be likely to read as "bashing men" as a whole, especially if you didn't have any context for her complaints. Not hearing the whole story here might be exacerbated if your general model for interacting with women who bring up their frustrations here is to go on the offensive. ("not all men are like that!"/etc.) If I wanted to vent about an unpleasant experience, I know I wouldn't go to someone I thought might engage me in an argument over it rather than listen, and I'd almost certainly shut down any argument that happened and refuse to share more if I felt like I was being attacked. That's human nature and not at all unreasonable: the last place I would've gone after I was read as gay and threatened with violence by a group of drunk men would be someone who'd I'd imagine would've told me that "not all Southern men are like that" or questioned me on it--I went to the closest gay friendly bar I could find and promptly got sloshed before getting a trusted friend to drive me home.
> If you go to a college campus and attempt to set up a "mens center" in the same vein as the womens centers that are increasingly common, you will most likely be 1) called a misogynist, 2) not taken seriously, 3) not succeed.
The thing is: is this a problem with feminism? I'd argue no. I think that you'd get a lot of pushback from more mainstream culture, and that push back would likely be very tied to patriarchal (as a hegemonic system) ideals about what men "should" be or do or how they "should" act.
> A "sex positive" outlook would not care whether or not Bayonetta was designed by or for men. Bayonetta would have the inherent right to dress and behave as she pleases, with no care for the viewer's tastes.
As a fictional character, Bayonetta has no will or desires beyond what her creators attribute to her. If we were talking about an actual woman here, I'd agree completely: but we're talking about a fictional character who uses magic. Critiquing characters and critiquing people are two very different things. As a counterpoint: I'd argue that characters like "He Man" (or many other male superheroes) or those in "Magic Mike" are a male equivalent and just as unrealistic.
> This is a small example, however every time it's brought up it's immediately shut down by popular feminist voices.
I'm not aware of things like this getting shut down except in cases where its brought up as a bit of a red herring to distract from another debate. I'm not aware of any feminist voices that have literally said "Male teachers who assault their students should go to jail for a longer period of time"--In fact I think the general feminist critical theory perspective would be that patriarchal ideas about sex (i.e. that men always want it, etc.) contribute to lower than deserved prison sentences for female teachers who abuse male students. What was the context for this getting brought up and "immediately shut down"?
> This may be a kind of blunt observation, but perhaps you see what you're looking for?
Saying I'm looking for an excuse to get offended in a conversation about feminism is a level of pot and kettle I haven't experienced before.
I can barely turn a corner anymore without being accused of objectifying women somehow. Every movie I want to watch, every video game I want to play, everything "objectifies" women somehow now, as long as it has any hint of sexuality and male demographic.
So you haven't come across and/or recognized that yet. Good for you, you're living in an ideal future and I someday hope to join you there.
> The thing is: is this a problem with feminism? I'd argue no. I think that you'd get a lot of pushback from more mainstream culture, and that push back would likely be very tied to patriarchal (as a hegemonic system) ideals about what men "should" be or do or how they "should" act.
"Patriarchy is not some claim that men are responsible for everything bad that happens."
"This isn't feminism, it's the patriarchy."
Sure, it's primarily feminists that fight those initiatives, but they're not acting in their capacity as a feminist. They took that hat off first.
> As a fictional character, Bayonetta has no will or desires beyond what her creators attribute to her. If we were talking about an actual woman here, I'd agree completely: but we're talking about a fictional character who uses magic. Critiquing characters and critiquing people are two very different things. As a counterpoint: I'd argue that characters like "He Man" (or many other male superheroes) or those in "Magic Mike" are a male equivalent and just as unrealistic.
Feminists say that fictional women (Barbie et. al) are representative of women as a whole, and should be treated as such.
If this is the case, then a fictional female character has the right to be represented as a complete character, sexuality and all.
If you're telling me it's otherwise, then why does a fictional female character's sexuality even merit discussion?
> I'm not aware of any feminist voices that have literally said "Male teachers who assault their students should go to jail for a longer period of time"
> I can barely turn a corner anymore without being accused of objectifying women somehow. Every movie I want to watch, every video game I want to play, everything "objectifies" women somehow now, as long as it has any hint of sexuality and male demographic.
> So you haven't come across and/or recognized that yet. Good for you, you're living in an ideal future and I someday hope to join you there.
Not at all.
A huge amount of mainstream media and art is aimed towards men, marketed to men, designed to titillate men, and involves objectification of women. To be completely honest: I don't think that completely removes it of any artistic merit (or fun factor for video games) or that it means you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy it.
Similarly, I firmly would defend a woman's right to enjoy (the small, percentage wise, and often looked down upon, culturally) pieces of media which are marketed to women, aimed at women, designed to titillate women, and involve objectification of male characters.
I honestly believe that people should be allowed to enjoy the media that they enjoy as long as it isn't harming other people, as long as they are willing to do some critical thinking about what enjoying it means. If you have done some critical thinking about what your enjoying of media that objectifies women says about you, your sexuality, and etc., and are comfortable with that, then who am I to stand in your way? If, however, you believe that all media should be that way, I'd have a bone to pick. If you don't believe that all media should be that way, then perhaps you should consider sampling other forms of media (including those aimed at women! Some romance novels can be /quite/ fun: I'd personally recommend Eloisa James, as her novels are accessible, adult without being particularly pornographic, and quite intelligent, and have quite interesting female leads) or pushing for media that is more accessible for people who aren't you. If it seems like 'absolutely everything' you want to consume involves objectification of women, then perhaps your taste in media leans towards the kind of mainstream media that doesn't include well rounded female characters, and perhaps those desires would be worth delving into and examining critically.
My root point is, though, that asking for well rounded, realistic female characters in what people are marketing as the primary pieces of an art form is totally reasonable, just as it would be reasonable for me to demand art or media that doesn't only portray "tall dark handsome men who're bad boys with a streak of gold" male characters. The problem is when two dimensional characters who are comparable in depth and characterization to the male leads of some romance novels are the only or the primary examples of female protagonists, or trumpeted as beacons of equality.
> Sure, it's primarily women that fight those initiatives, but they're not acting in their capacity as a feminist. They took that hat off first.
Women, even women who identify as feminists, do not always act completely in accordance with the principles they espouse. It may surprise you to learn that religious people, democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc. also fall victim to this. I don't know the details of the things you're referencing, but tbh it sounds like a bunch of college students behaved as a mob. That kind of thing is never alright.
> Feminists say that fictional women (Barbie et. al) are representative of women as a whole, and should be treated as such. If this is the case, then a fictional female character has the right to be represented as a complete character, sexuality and all. If you're telling me it's otherwise, then why does a fictional female character's sexuality even merit discussion?
Barbie, as a product, is marketed as an ideal that all (or most) (white?) women should push towards. If there was a good, interesting range of complete portrayals of fictional women in mainstream film, television, and video games at all, then one or two or even a genre of uniform female characters wouldn't be a problem for me (or, indeed, I think most feminists--do you hear many women decrying the two dimensional female characters in grocery store spy novels, which I'd claim are probably the male equivalent of romance novels? I certainly haven't heard a lot of uproar over that.), just as a genre or piece with flat male characters wouldn't be a problem! It is when all or most representations of women in all or most media are two dimensional and unrealistic (and this is being called 'progress') that there is a problem. Unfortunately, that's largely also the current state of affairs! There has been a lot of great movement towards interesting/nonstandard female leads in recent television (Interestingly, I'd say that Mad Men comes to mind as a very strong example of this, despite its period setting.) and I think that trend is moving into movies as well, so hopefully this state of affairs won't last forever.
That's an interesting argument, although to be completely honest it seems kind of ridiculous. Replace "women" with "people" in that article and aside from needing to fix the statistics RE: violent crime, you have a pretty standard (if slightly overwrought) argument against imprisoning most nonviolent offenders--which isn't completely beyond the pale and something I could get behind.
College students are dumb. They always have been, they probably always will be. The funny thing is, they almost certainly have legitimate complaints about the campus culture, society, and the world, but they're likely behaving in such a juvenile fashion because they feel like it's one of the few ways they /can/ affect change. Judging every anti-war protester by the actions of the Weathermen would also paint a pretty bad picture of anti-war protest.
This is perhaps a little late, since this fell off the front page, but I figured I'd respond to you because you seem to have your heart in the right place, but have a kind of twisted view of what most feminists actually believe. It also feels like you're mixing up the views of one political/social movement with the current state of the world as a whole, which is a poor argument against feminism. I would point out that most feminists are primarily interested in fixing women's issues at the moment, but that there are not, as far as I am aware, any men's groups that seem actually interested in addressing the (definitely less immediate or serious, to be honest...) issues that the patriarchy (as a social/hegemonic system) causes for men: which you seem to be particularly interested in.
> "Teach men not to rape."
Many (most?) rapists are men. Many men are not rapists. These quotes aren't claiming that all men are rapists, and you've pulled them out of their social/political context in order to claim that they are. You're taking those quotes a bit out of context: they are responding to the cultural expectations/norms/memes of teaching women to avoid rape (and blaming them if they do not) instead of teaching men to not rape (and not really blaming them if they do). The studies (not feeling up for going and fetching them ATM, but let me know if you want me to) have generally shown that rape prevention teaching aimed at women reduces the chance that any particular woman will get raped, but does not reduce the overall incidence of male on female rape--while rape prevention teaching aimed at men does reduce the overall incidence of rape. (Note: female on male rape/sexual assault is generally thought to be much less common, but that may be due to serious stigmatization of reporting by men and poor metrics for measuring it--which is a separate issue than what is trying to be addressed by these sorts of slogans/philosophies. TBH, I think the best option may be universal "don't rape each other" training given to everyone, rather than classes aimed at preventing yourself from getting raped or preventing only men from raping.)
> Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.
Patriarchy, as a sociological concept, is not about blaming men for the ills of the world. It refers to a hegemonic system which shoehorns both men and women into specific roles, values the male roles more, and punishes both men and women for stepping outside of them. It can (and is) bad for men as well as women--look up the research on what emotions are acceptable for men to show, how many preventable deaths occur because men didn't go to a doctor when they should have, etc. It is also tied to the devaluation of certain activities men might want to take part in (homosexuality, acting 'feminine' in any way, wearing dresses, whatever) and the potential for assault if people who were identified as male at birth don't go along with it (look up murder rates for MTF women, for instance). Framing some parts of masculinity as 'toxic'--inability to express emotions other than anger without being socially sanctioned, masculinity being tied up in punishing those who deviate (attacking homosexuals, crossdressers, etc.) is perfectly reasonable, too, and not an attack on men or masculinity as a whole--just the parts of it that involve hurting people. I will agree, however, that some folks don't seem to understand the nuance of what was is a formal academic term and misuse it. ('patriarchy'; this observation also applies to many other terms with formal academic contexts which were adopted by people without the background.)
> You've basically repeated what I said, except you seem to think sexism a good thing as long as it targets someone you perceive as "advantaged".
This is a subtle point, but: acknowledging that you are, in some ways, given huge advantages by society as a whole doesn't require you to feel terrible because of it. This is something I think a lot of people miss: privilege isn't something you can do something about in the present, aside from acknowledging that it benefits you and that you may not experience the same struggles and hardships, or may not experience struggles/hardship in the same way as someone without those benefits. The difference is subtle, but pretty important. The things you can do to address that, though, are listening to the experiences of those who don't have the systematic benefits you do, call out when you may be getting what seems to be an unfair advantage, and when possible, using your advantages to benefit those who do not have them. (A super simplistic example of the last would have been, as a man, voting for women's suffrage when they did not have the right to vote. A more subtle and modern example might be speaking up if you notice that a female colleague's ideas are often restated by and then credited to men, as you're likely to be perceived as a neutral party in a case like that.)
That is word-for-word the way I hear it phrased, and no context can make it right. It implies that men are rapists who don't know any better, and need educated on what rape is and how not to do it. It implies that all men are sociopaths, and need to be taught basic human empathy.
Saying that all/many/most men are rapists is an unsupportable claim, as in much of the Western world rape has been (and still is) defined specifically as unwanted male-on-female penetration. Until statistics can be presented that have substantiated backing, this is an unfair assessment.
"Teach X not to Y" is an ineffective method for preventing Y. You can put everyone in the world in a class telling them not to mug, murder, rape, pillage, stab, shoot, or use the Oxford Comma. People will still act according to their own personal motivations and (presence or lack of) morals. If I want to prevent myself from being mugged, I will learn to recognize the sort of dangerous situations that could lead to that eventuality. I will take personal responsibility for my safety. I will also understand that there will be times that there was nothing I could have reasonably done to prevent it from happening, if it should.
See, I really don't get that from "Teach men not to rape". All I see it implying is that there are men who rape--this is indisputable, with most reported rapes being male on male or male on female, and almost all of my female friends in the past either having experienced either a rape or a sexual assault by a man. That doesn't make me a rapist any more than it makes you a rapist: but it makes some men out there rapists. Consider the studies cited here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/05/01/campus_sexua...
If the numbers agreed with you, then I'd say that "teach X not to Y" being ineffective was true.
And even for things like muggings/theft, a lot of the time the crime is an impulsive act, and there's also evidence that you can teach people to avoid making that impulsive jump to mugging/etc. It's a bit more complicated than just telling people "Don't mug", but something pretty much resembling "Teach X not to Y" is used by the US Govt. to reduce recidivism in criminal offenders: https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=242 and there's a large body of research that shows that it's effective. (There are other studies of similar CBT based programs in inner city schools with similarly good effects on people who aren't yet criminals but are likely to become criminal.)
You don't get that it's offensive to men to say "teach men not to rape"?
What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound incredibly racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the effective difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of murders are by blacks.
Regardless of the effectiveness of "Don't Be That Guy", the ends do not justify the means. It would also be effective to immediately throw into prison the people most "at risk" to commit a crime, but that does not make it morally right. After all, how well do you think a "Don't Be That Black Guy" campaign would go over in Detroit?
> What about "teach black people not to murder"? Does that not sound incredibly racist to you? If it does, and I really hope it does, what is the effective difference? After all, there is ample data that the majority of murders are by blacks.
Phrased like that, yes, it does sound a little racist. However, your point is slightly facetious: I think you and I are both aware that the statistical link between murder and blackness is poverty (i.e. control for poverty/neighborhood and the link between murder and blackness goes away), which is exacerbated in the US by a lot of structural racism/etc. that black people face.
However, from a practical standpoint, I believe that I actually advocated for exactly that, and I stand by my arguments: my point about CBT-based crime prevention (teaching people to not X)? Perhaps obviously, those programs are most effective at reducing criminal behavior from those who are most likely to commit crimes in the future. In the US, the places where they've been shown to be effective are for youth from high crime, poor urban neighborhoods and current prison inmates... both of which are populations that are predominantly black. I'd totally advocate for the expansion of programs like the ones I mentioned if they continue to show statistically significant results RE: reducing criminal behavior, and I think most people would. Teaching people who are most likely to commit criminal acts to instead not commit criminal acts is a net benefit to society and to those people. I'm not, I hope obviously, claiming that being black makes you criminal (or more likely to be a criminal) or that black people alone should be targeted with programs like the ones I mentioned regardless of location, risk, etc. at the expense of similarly high risk white people, in the same way that I'm not claiming that being a man makes you inherently a rapist.
RE: "Don't be that guy" and the ends do not justify the means: It's possible to come up with all kinds of exaggerated scenarios to argue this. I would agree that, say, killing all men to prevent male on female rape would be both very effective and completely unjust.
So let's keep in mind the comparison you're making here: we are talking about, variously, (a) a public advertising campaign about how it's bad to rape people versus actual rape, (b) a course that lasts a few days at the start of college or a week in middle or high school on the importance of consent (tbh, I'd claim it'd be good for it to be aimed at men and women) versus actual rape or (c) a month or semester long course on self control and healthy behaviors in middle/high school/prison versus actual mugging/assault/murder. The "means" we're talking about are not exactly things with a particularly high human cost, especially when compared to the "ends".
My example is not contrived at all, and equally relevant. You can take any feminist argument and search/replace "men" with "black people" and the underlying hate speech becomes readily apparent. The specific group of people does not particularly matter, it only highlights the very apparent cumulative effect this sort of feminism has had on convincing society as a whole that men are disposable enough to be talked about in such a manner.
If your "means" involve teaching young men that they are considered sociopathic abusive rapists by society and that they need extensive education to learn otherwise, and you do not consider that a "particularly high human cost" then I think we should leave this conversation as it is. Neither of us will be able to convince the other of our position, and we'll only talk in circles trying.
I don't think any sensible solution to rape or to crime involves "teaching young men that they are considered sociopathic abusive rapists by society" or even "teaching young black men that they are expected to be criminals." That really is only likely to increase crime/rape.
Rape prevention education is generally along the lines of "This is what consent is. It's important! If you don't get consent and have sex with someone, that's rape, and that's bad! These are situations where someone really isn't capable of consent: when they're incapacitated, if you're blackmailing them, if you're holding them down and they're verbally objecting, or really if you haven't gotten a clear and enthusiastic "Wow I want to bone you" from them. You may see someone try to have sex with someone else under those circumstances: that would make you a bystander! If you are a bystander, here are some things you can do to keep that person from raping someone: (a), (b), (c). Etc."
Similarly, the crime prevention things I linked and referred to take a different tack of "These are ways to control your emotions and think through the consequences of your actions".
Your portrayal of it as anything else leads me to believe that you haven't ever gone through a rape prevention course and have done absolutely no research on what they usually entail. The reason I'd advise them for everyone is because they're valuable courses for women, too: both because if there's a explicit culture of "nobody is getting laid without an explicit 'yes'", it's shocking how quickly people will start actually getting explicit 'yes'es (See Antioch College), and because I've known of at least one woman who got a man extremely drunk, well beyond where he could remember or consent, and then had sex with him. (Spoiler alert: The guy there was me. I remembered none of it and only found out we'd done anything a few weeks later. I never pressed charges, sought help, or reported it, because like in many situations these things are complicated and she was a friend. When we discussed it later/I'd found out it happened, she didn't think she'd done anything wrong, and that was probably the most messed up part of it. Let's just say universal consent training is something I have personal reasons to feel strongly is important.)
What good does it to tell the First World Female how much better she has it than the Third World Female?
Should we go around devaluing the accomplishments of a person in the First World because they were born into the life they got? Do we tell them that everything they achieved was purely a result of the luck of the draw, and that their hard work and dedication means nothing?
If the first world female (or male) was asking why the third world female didn't:
e.x. "Just go to the hospital"
or "Pull herself up by her bootstrings"
or "Move somewhere nicer"
or w/e, then it would make all the sense in the world to explain things like "There is no hospital within 200 miles and nobody in the village owns a car", or "The last time she made any money it was taken away by a corrupt official" or "Legal immigration into a first world country is almost impossible for someone in her position."
People don't seem to have any problems understanding that: if I was to start saying that villagers in (African or Asian country) who live on less than a dollar a day (or whatever) should just go to a good US college and get a tech degree (when, say, no post-primary or even just primary school education is available), nobody has any problem looking at me and going "Really? You f'ing serious right now?"
That doesn't devalue the fact that I worked hardish in high school, got into a good US school, finished two undergraduate degrees and almost finished a masters degree in four years and from that and my extensive programming hobby got a job, where I've been recognized for being a solid developer: those are all meaningful accomplishments that I worked hard or work hard on and things I can (and do!) celebrate!
However, realizing that they aren't necessarily options that are as readily available to everyone or as accessible to everyone is basic empathy. This is something I don't understand: we both have no problem acknowledging this when the person in question a black woman from Uganda, where the structural inequalities are so stark it'd be impossible to miss them, but when it's only a black man from Detroit or even a white woman from New York who might not have had the opportunities and support I had, it somehow devalues my accomplishments? The deck I was given at birth was stacked in my favor, with (quite literally) almost every educational + societal opportunity: that doesn't reduce my accomplishments, but I can't say it definitely didn't contribute to them! (And that even means acknowledging the subtle things, like the fact that I was able to work on my second undergraduate degree and the masters coursework over the summers instead of needing to support myself or save money for the next year, or things like the fact that my high school had a lot of AP courses and I didn't have to start working as soon as I was legally able to in order to help my family's financial situation.) Acknowledging things like that may explain how I managed to do what I managed to do: but that doesn't mean that I just walked in the door and was handed two degrees without any work or was handed a job simply for being who I am. It doesn't devalue my accomplishments, but if someone had achieved the same things as me from a less advantaged position, then that would certainly be more impressive. And I'm fine with that: if someone had to work harder to get what I had to work hard to get, then their accomplishments are that much more impressive. If someone else, say, was genetically engineered and then programmed to know everything about computer science and modern mathematics, then maybe their getting degrees in CS and math would be less impressive... in the same way of if I went back to college knowing everything I learned and got an A+ in a class I used to TA, maybe that isn't really much to celebrate.
But even putting educational and financial disparities aside, let's look at how the term used in the real world:
"I am a white male that has achieved moderate success in life, but still face financial difficulties due to the harsh economy that puts an undue burden on the middle class."
> Framing masculinity as a negative is anti-male. "Patriarchy" as a concept, regarding men as responsible for all the ills of the world, is also anti-male.
I agree that there are competing definitions for the word patriarchy. The usage I see most often used in feminism tends to be the toxic version.
The issue is that the 1% are the loudest ones. They drown out the more reasonable ones and are the ones that seem to be more outspoken on Twitter and Tumblr where they receive a wider audience than they deserve.
I have no issue with claiming that "feminazis" are a minority of feminists, as I'm sure they are. But to pretend they don't exist or that they aren't the most outspoken is being in denial of reality. Any memorable contact I've had with feminists has been with that nasty, confrontational "1%".
I'm not alone with these poor interactions - as people are quickly referring to that 1% group as "feminists". Representative of the entire group as a whole, which is a bad image for the more reasonable feminists to hold and why many feminists refuse to call themselves a feminist. They might be mistaken for "that kind" of feminist.
The "fight" has become so polarized by extremists from both sides (MRA and feminist, to clarify) that as an egalitarian I get called a "man-hating feminist" by many MRA and a "disgusting misogynist pig" by many feminists. I find this funny - but also very depressing.
I'm a man and have spoken with many other feminists over the years, and read a lot of feminist literature, philosophy, cultural criticism, etc. In my experience I'd say that more than 99% of feminism/feminists have all to do with being against men. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything, actually, I could reasonably describe as not promoting this view. Maybe some radical stuff from the 70s, like Firestone, makes this hatred explicit, but these days the hatred is expressed more subtly, typically in legal initiatives that clearly disadvantage men, for example the insane rules around divorce and alimony.
Feminism back then was different than feminism today. Most young feminists oppose alimony, since it assumes women can't support themselves, and is unfair to men. Feminists long ago supposed alimony when most women were house keepers, and alimony was important to giving them independence following divorce.
I agree, some of the stuff from the 70s was downright incendiary (shooting Andy Warhol, etc). But feminism has evolved.
Where are all those young feminists campaigning against alimony, for 50/50 shared custody in divorce, equally severe sentencing criminal cases for men and women, draft for women, etc? I'm not meeting them.
Sample size doesn't scale linearly with population size, it converges as population approaches infinity. The harder issue is getting an unbiased sample.
They are very anti-male. (I thought that was obvious so I didn't mention it, and if you read the wikipedia page or watch the play, you'll see what I mean).
I have not seen the play, but looking at the wikipedia page, they give eight examples of the monologues, and I don't see anything that's obviously anti-male. (unless you're going to get angry about "My Vagina Was My Village, a monologue compiled from the testimonies of Bosnian women subjected to rape camps.")
I have seen the play. The issue is that all the male-female relationships are portrayed as bad, whereas female-female relationships are portrayed as good (even when the girl was underage). This is discussed in the wikipedia page, and it's also pretty obvious if you watch the play.
I saw the play too. It sounds like the version you saw didn't have the story about Bob in it? That was, like, a tale of instant miraculous redemption through a male-female sexual relationship. And what about the relationship between the coochie-snorcher girl and her father, who shot to death his friend who was raping her? (Maybe you meant "sexual relationship" where you wrote "relationship", which would exclude that one.) And I'm pretty sure in the "If your vagina could talk, what would it say?" part, there were a lot of women speaking positively about male-female sexual relationships.
I didn't think it was too unbalanced, but of course I'm a pretty committed feminist, which is why I saw the play in the first place, back in 2000.
