Feminists hate misogyny, not men. Kinda like that “hate the sin, not the sinner” thing, sometimes it’s easy to separate the behaviour from the enactor and sometimes it’s not.
But we know that not all men are pits of misogyny, so if you aren’t acting out misogyny, then it’s not about you. We also know that men who sometimes fall into minor unthinking habits of misogyny are not comparable to men who are violent and irredeemable misogynists. It’s understandable how sometimes criticisms of misogynists come across as generalisations about all men, when read by someone who isn’t used to the jargon shorthand and feminist perspectives. Time to lurk and learn.
Ilyka’s post: Occasionally conversations with my man are instructive is instructive here.
“A lot of the guys written about on feminist blogs do things I would never do.””Then don’t identify with them. It’s not about you! You stand to pee, they stand to pee, beyond that, what’s the commonality?”
Of course, the man-hating accusation is not always made by bewildered men of general goodwill. It is frequently made by men who simply don’t want to hear any criticism of their privileged status-quo.
Related Reading:
- FAQ: Isn’t “the Patriarchy” just some conspiracy theory that blames all men, even decent men, for women’s woes?
- FAQ: Aren’t feminists just sexists towards men?
- FAQ: Can men be feminists?
- FAQ: Aren’t feminists all lesbian man-haters?
Introductory:
- Witchy-Woo (Well I’ll Go To The Foot Of My Stairs…): I’ve had a lovely day
Clarifying Concepts:
- On how stereotypes are insulting to men:
This is how Sam describes your average single man: “messy, greedy, sports-loving, junk-food-scoffing and as womanizing”. Presumably a relationship somehow transforms Homo Singlemanus into a tidy, selfless gourmet who only watches sport sometimes, tosses a mean salad and only has eyes for you.
Seriously, my dear male readers, aren’t you sick of this rubbish? Don’t you get pissed off every time you turn on the TV and there you are, being presented as some idiot who needs a woman to work any domestic appliance in the home? Aren’t you over the idea that you need to be tidied up and polished by the love of a good woman?
[Kate Jasper (Moment to Moment): And you think feminists hate men?.] - On conflating “man-hating” with standing up for oneself against men/a man:
But every time we point out the disparity, the inequality, and yes, the personally & publicly horrifying things that men do, we are man-haters. It can’t possibly be that we are offended & disappointed by the male refusal to accept the responsibility which comes with power; we must simply hate them.
[Alessia (Kitsch-Slapped): From The “Wha Wha Wha Poor Men” Files.]
Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog 
[…] Comments FAQ: Why do you femi… on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…FAQ: Why feminism … on FAQ: What is “Post-femin…FAQ: […]
Well, I know a lot of women who do not hate men. We have plenty of them on our blog, including my Mother. I invite all of you to check us out and maybe you will learn a think or two.
God Bless
http://baptistsforbrown2008.wordpress.com/
[…] Comments tekanji on FAQ UpdatesLee on FAQ UpdatesBrother Yancy, USN R… on FAQ: Why do you feminists hate…FAQ: Aren’t fe… on FAQ: Isn’t the Patriarc…FAQ: Isn’t th… on FAQ: Why do you […]
[…] Comments FAQ: Why do you femi… on FAQ: Aren’t feminists ju…FAQ: Aren’t fe… on FAQ: Why do you feminists […]
[…] questions and I don’t have particularly cogent responses to them (although we do have an FAQ addressing the manhating strawfeminist). Lesbianism has been both embraced and demonised by different segments of the feminist movement at […]
In my opinion & my observation …
There actually are a significant number of women who identify as “feminist” who treat feminism as a psychological rather than a political movement.
Here’s an example – let’s hypothesize a women who was initially incested by her own family – say by a father, step-father, or uncle at a very young age.
Following this, her sexual boundaries compromised at a young age, she goes into sex work.
She gets into a bunch of crappy relationships, perhaps marriages, perhaps involving children.
She gets raped.
Then, finally, she becomes a “feminist”.
She’s not a lesbian (clearly), but she has a great
deal of anger at all men – going back to the father
figure who incested her. She has a total inablity to trust men.
She uses “feminism” as her platform for venting her anger towards men in general – which is valid based on her experiences – but her experiences, while sadly common, are not the experiences of most men & women – they are exceptional.
Externalizing her personal problems (i.e. it’s the patriarchy’s fault, dammit) makes it difficult for her to do the internal work that would allow her to change her personal life story (i.e. change the kind of men she chooses – the ones who reinforce the patterns of her life.)
Her use of “feminism” as a psychological rather than a political movement also makes it harder for feminism as a political movement to do the natural
things political movements should do – build coalitions with natural allies, for example.
In other words, all that anger from all that trauma alienates the majority (both men & women) who don’t have those kinds of experiences, and who may not even be aware how sadly common those experiences are.
Just saying …
By the way, the life story above was a synopsis of a popular feminist bloggers ([name redacted by moderator]) posted life story.
If you look around feminist blogs for personal history details, you find lots & lots of this stuff …
Wow, Rael, way to miss the point! Why on earth should women trust men? The experiences that you describe are heartbreakingly common, and it’s MEN who start the cycle. What authority are you citing when you say that these experiences are uncommon? Because, being a woman, and talking openly with other women, I know that such experiences are really, really common. If no woman you know has told you about these things happening to her, consider that maybe she doesn’t consider you a safe person to confide in, because of things like what you say here.
Okay, I’m done feeding the concern troll now.
I am a man who has been confided in by several women and I find it to be the exception to hear that there has not been sexual abuse in her history. I really hope it’s not really that bad in the general population and that the ones who have something to say, do so because it was bad. But hearing what I have, it makes me feel embarrassed about my entire gender.
So, women who have a history of being abused by men they knew and trusted, men whom other people around them probably describe as normal, decent men, are wrong to be mistrustful now in self-defence? They should deny their own experience, and their anger over that experience, just so they don’t “alienate” others?
People who are only willing to show compassion and be allies to people who don’t show justifiable anger are textbook illustrations of fair-weather friends.
Not all feminists have a history of abuse by men. I don’t have such a history, although I’ve known a few jerks, just like everybody else, and female jerks as well. Yet I’m still a feminist, and I’m still angry on behalf of the women who have been abused, and who mostly had that abuse shrugged at for years by society.
Arguments about how women should just be less angry seem to come right back down to gender roles about how women should defer to male sensibilities by being supportive and nurturing and careful not to nag. Sod that.
I don’t want to sound like The Girl Who Just Want a Disemvoweled, but…
change the kind of men she chooses – the ones who reinforce the patterns of her life
I’m always amazed at how people comment here without having read anything on this site. Or are they just plain trolling?
Victim’s experiences ‘alienates’ the majority. Huh. Who would have thought Feminism was all about making the Patriarchy likes us.
I wondered who was going to be the first to spot that bit of victim-blaming, Noir.
Because of course girls “choose” to be born into a family where the adult men commit incest, and in later life they “choose” the men with clearly obvious fangs and claws instead of the decent men who would never do anything nasty (no fangs and claws, see, obviously safe).
Clarification for other readers: I believe that there are decent men who would never do anything nasty to women (I trust that I’m married to one) but they don’t look any different from the nasty abusive men.
The Koss-Oros studies were recently in the news.
I’ve posted one of the original studies at: http://www.outersect.net/KossOrosPaper/
… so you can read it for yourself without either right-wing or feminist filtereing if you want to.
If you believe the results of the Koss-Oros studies, about 20-25% of women experience rape or attempted rape by about the time they get through their first year of college. These rapes or attempted rapes are not all (or even mostly) happening *in* college – they include girls incested in the home.
Assuming you go with the 20-25% figure, that means
that 75-80% do not have these experiences.
So these are sadly common, but still minority experiences. Most people (75-80% of them if you believe this study) do not have these experiences.
As far as what happens later in life to women or men who are the victims of incest or child sexual abuse: it isn’t their fault in a way, BUT … once the victims become adults they have to take responsibilty for themselves. If that wasn’t the case you’d have to let almost all child molestors off the hook.
It’s too bad you can’t make the perpetrators do the therapy for the victims – but you just can’t. It doesn’t work that way.
Wow, Rael, way to miss the point! Why on earth should women trust men?
Because, since they’re not gay, they’ll never know the joy of a truly intimate sexual relationship unless they learn to trust those men who are worthy of trust.
… and that will make them even more unhappy, lonely, bitter and angry than they already are.
Not sure if I finally found the right place to ask this. Why is some feminist writing so… angry? For example, some of the “feminazi” stuff; it is supposed to humor, right? Then there are things like SCUM/Solanas. It seems to me that she is serious. Am I just missing the historical context completely?
Many of the things I have read seem to basically have a lot of shock value. I read an explanation for the “angry” tone along the lines of, “assuming an active voice/role.” It made a lot of sense, is that a more or less fair statement? It felt like it explained a lot. I’ve thought to myself before that I may not be the intended audience of many of these writings. Still, sometimes I feel like it is very accusatory.
Some of the stuff is pretty funny. For example I read an article about “why man hating is good” and at the end it more or less said, just kidding, I just like to see them squirm! I laughed, because I was ‘squirming’ reading it.
Firstly, tattoo this somewhere highly visible:) – no one feminist speaks for everyone who identifies with the feminist movement.
Some people are angry, they often have much to justifiably be angry about, and those people write angry material. This is hardly unique to feminism. Also not unique to feminism, sometimes people who try for satire based on ideological outrage are too angry to do it as effectively as they might like – some argue this for SCUM/Solanas, but I can’t offer an opinion there as I’ve never studied it.
Active voice: sometimes, when women use the active voice, it is perceived to be angry when the same words from a man are not. Be aware of this. Also be aware of how shocking it can be to confront the active voice in discussions of sexist oppression when you are accustomed to our society’s habit of using the passive voice e.g. “the woman was raped” instead of the active voice of “a man raped the woman”. There’s an excellent post on that by Lauredhel: Passive Aggression: Foregrounding the Object
Regarding a perception that such language is accusatory, try ilyka’s Occasionally Conversations with my Man Are Instructive: if it’s not about you, then it’s not about you.
Does that help any?
It is a huge mistake to assume that all men stand to pee!
Today I had a conversation with a friend of mine that I percieve to be a nice, liberal guy who is not a chauvinist. He was describing an ex of his who he didn’t fit very well with:
“She would sit at her old typewriter with a cigarette dangling out of her mouth and a glass of hard liquor by her side, and turn to me and make some feminist comment, and that would be the start of a huge argument.”
The tone with which he said “feminist comment” conveyed that it was a comment that he didn’t appreciate or found offensive. I assumed that her comment was actually anti-male stereotyping, because I couldn’t fathom this man being offended by advocating for equality. I objected to the conflation of anti-male sentiments with feminism. Apparently this woman was a self-identified feminist, and when I said, “Embracing negative sterotypes about men isn’t feminist,” I was told that she was a *radical* feminist.
Many people carry around stereotypes and prejudices about people who are not like them. Feminists are not immune to this. Neither are activists working against other forms of oppression.
I feel like we a have a dirty secret in our movement. Many women have been physically and emotionally hurt by men. Some of those women gravitate towards feminism. Some of those women develop negative ideas about men in response to their experiences. Some women become feminists AND harbor negative ideas about men.
I feel enormous compassion for women who have suffered and are hurt and angry. Feminist spaces allow people to talk about their feelings and experiences without being exposed to misogynist attacks. I think that’s enormously valuable. I don’t blame people for their experiences or their feelings. At the same time, I think negative stereotypes about men are embarrassing and counterproductive to the movement.
I’m one of those feminists. I’ve been hurt, and I’m angry, and sometimes I say mean things that come from a place of fear and sadness. I’ve been known to claim that that men use women for sex and aren’t interested in emotional connections. That is a dangerous and damaging stereotype, and I’m not proud that I’ve uttered it and that I still sometimes hear it in my head.
I know I’m not alone here. Why haven’t I seen any of the big feminist bloggers reflecting on these issues?
I realize this is a tall order. It takes a lot of emotional maturity to face up to our own prejudices. It takes an enormous amount of work to re-program negative thoughts that were seeded by traumatic experiences. For me, anti-male sentiments are a defense mechanism. If I had other defense mechanisms, I would use them. But I don’t. And I’m sorry.
Thank you for this comment. I have been devouring this blog for a couple hours now after stumbling upon it entirely by accident. The entire blog is intelligent and well-written. It has given words to things I already knew about feminism and sexism in our society–if only as vague concepts–and has been generally enlightening. I find myself re-examining my views and my actions continually while reading it.
Even still, for all the enlightened posts I found here, I could not help but maintain a general feeling that feminism was not as rosy as tigtog (who I understand to be the creator/writer/runner of this blog) makes it out to be. Or, to be more clear, that their position was entirely infallible.
Your comment has helped me separate feminism from anti-male sentiment, and view the movement more objectively and without the taint of personal experience of “feminists” who I now think misrepresent it.
Reading this comments, one thing comes to mind.
The great majority of women in my life that I have trusted, have done terrible, vile things to me.
As a result, I mistrust women out of self-defense.
It had come up in a topic of discussion on a feminist site, and what was I told? That’s a misogynist thing to say. That it was wrong and misogynist of me to pre-judge women based on the actions of other women, and that I should be more careful in the women I choose.
So, why is it wrong, and sexist for a male to say a woman should be more selective with the males she associates with, but it’s perfectly alright for the inverse?
Why would it be right and justified for a woman to be mistrustful of men, when men have wronged her, but it’s “woman hate” when a man does the same?
D, My negative stereotypes are not ok, hence the words “embarrassing and counterproductive.” I wasn’t excusing them, I was admitting them. I should be more selective in the people I trust, and so should you. I should work on overcoming my emotional baggage, and so should you. I think my post and yours reveal that I AM working on said baggage, and you are not.
The difference between my negative stereotypes and yours is that your prejudice is institutionalized. The people with power in our society are more likely to harbor your ideas than mine. Feminists have built a movement out of fighting anti-woman sexism, because it hurts us and restricts us every day.
If you want to fight anti-male sexism, go for it. (Don’t think it’s our job to fight your battles.) There is plenty of negative stereotyping of men going on in mainstream media: men can’t dress themselves, men don’t like fruits and vegetables, men can’t do housework, men are bad listeners, men don’t have feelings, all men are homophobic, men are only motivated by sex, etc. Write letters to companies whose advertisements trade on these stereotypes. But attacking feminism because some feminists have baggage and sometimes say stupid things doesn’t hurt the status quo or help you heal or teach you how to trust again.
In the meantime, read this article. The whole thing. Really.
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/09/feminists_are_sexist
I was referring specifically to an earlier comment, stating that it was wrong to tell a woman that she should be more selective in the men she trusts, but that it’s apparently okay to tell a man that.
Also, that it’s acceptable for a woman to mistrust men based on bad experiences, but not for a man to mistrust women.
. But attacking feminism because some feminists have baggage and sometimes say stupid things doesn’t hurt the status quo or help you heal or teach you how to trust again.
I’m simply pointing out the hypocritical double-standard, and asking why what’s good for the goose is apparently not at all good for the gander.
Also, I’m not the one who screwed my trust up. It’s not up to me, per se, to fix it. You break it, you fix it.
D, you are asking people here to justify an argument you claim that someone made to you on another site, not this one. Nobody made that particular argument here.
Personally, I find it totally understandable that people who have been hurt by a betrayal of trust find it very difficult to trust again, whether they are a man or a woman. Reluctance to trust is a rational self-protective response.
The problem comes when that protective reticence becomes a generalised mistrust based on stereotypes: e.g. “that blue-eyed person betrayed me, I’ll never trust anyone with blue eyes never again!”.
It’s not up to me to fix something that somebody else did to you, although if I witness an abusive act it is only ethical to speak up, intervene if I can, and acknowledge that it actually happened and caused harm.
Betrayals of trust violate a basic principle of the social contract, and as such should be generally condemned. I’m not sure why you think that feminists wouldn’t believe that. It’s also worth considering whether people who may have dismissed your complaints in the past were actually reacting to the details of your situation or to the negativity of your generally combative tone.
[quote]The problem comes when that protective reticence becomes a generalised mistrust based on stereotypes: e.g. “that blue-eyed person betrayed me, I’ll never trust anyone with blue eyes never again!”.[/quote]
Except you justified someone’s mistrust of men. Despite it being stereotyped. You justified it vehemently.
[quote]It’s not up to me to fix something that somebody else did to you[/quote]
Men are told that men raping women is a problem that men need to stop other men from doing.
Ergo, I find it perfectly acceptable to say that women ruined my trust, it’s up to women to repair it.
[quote]It’s also worth considering whether people who may have dismissed your complaints in the past were actually reacting to the details of your situation or to the negativity of your generally combative tone.[/quote]
Elucidate on this, please.
Blarg. Wrong tags. That’s what I get for perusing multiple sites with different code standards at the same time. My apologies.
There’s a big difference between asking someone to stop an act of violence when they actually see it happening, and asking someone to repair the harm caused by a betrayal of trust that is in the past. If you can’t see that this is a huge difference then you are being gratuitously offensive.
I personally have told more than one friend who discussed whether to cheat on a boyfriend that it would be the wrong thing to do to a guy who had always been kind to her, and that if she couldn’t resist the temptation then the right thing was to break up rather than to cheat. Have you done anything close to that much if some guy you know is making jokes about date rape?
There’s a big difference between asking someone to stop an act of violence when they actually see it happening, and asking someone to repair the harm caused by a betrayal of trust that is in the past. If you can’t see that this is a huge difference then you are being gratuitously offensive.
You’re misreading me.
I mean the problem of men raping, in general. As in, males rape, and it’s up to males to stop other males from being the type of males that rape.
Is that more clarified?
I wasn’t referring to a rape in progress.
I personally have told more than one friend who discussed whether to cheat on a boyfriend that it would be the wrong thing to do to a guy who had always been kind to her, and that if she couldn’t resist the temptation then the right thing was to break up rather than to cheat.
Well, you should have been friends with the woman who spent 8 months hopping from my bed to someone else’s.
Have you done anything close to that much if some guy you know is making jokes about date rape?
I have one male friend, that since he’s moved, I’ve seen maybe 3 times in the last 5 years.
All the rest of my friends are women.
The situation you speak of has never arisen.
(Also, is it just the same tags I used, but with the html style brackets, not bbcode?)
Also, for the record, if someone is the type of person that “can’t resist the temptation”, they shouldn’t ever get into a relationship in the first place.
“[quote]It’s also worth considering whether people who may have dismissed your complaints in the past were actually reacting to the details of your situation or to the negativity of your generally combative tone.[/quote]
Elucidate on this, please.”
I think I understand what tigtog was getting at as far as people at other sites reacting to the details of your situation. Every relationship has two sides, and much of the time when two people are hurting each other, those two people have very different perspectives. It’s possible that people on other sites perceived your story differently than you do.
Tigtog’s comment about your generally combative tone should be self-explanatory.
When people talk about rape being a men’s issue, they are talking about preventing future rapes. No one is asking all men to collectively atone for past rapes.
On a personal note, refusing to take responsibility for your emotional baggage is kind of like refusing to take responsibility for a case of strep throat that you got from someone else when you shared a drink: the only person suffering is you. Making someone else swallow antibiotics won’t make you feel any better.
Every relationship has two sides, and much of the time when two people are hurting each other, those two people have very different perspectives. It’s possible that people on other sites perceived your story differently than you do.
There’s…really no other way to perceive someone consistently betraying another for 8 months.
How else do you see that? What other way COULD you see that?
When people talk about rape being a men’s issue, they are talking about preventing future rapes. No one is asking all men to collectively atone for past rapes.
Well, people expect me to take responsibility for something I didn’t do, so why is it so wrong to expect women to take responsibility for something they didn’t do?
On a personal note, refusing to take responsibility for your emotional baggage is kind of like refusing to take responsibility for a case of strep throat that you got from someone else when you shared a drink: the only person suffering is you. Making someone else swallow antibiotics won’t make you feel any better.
How would you feel if someone referred to a woman that had been raped, and said her negative feelings about it were her own “emotional baggage that she needs to deal with”?
For the record, I feel fine. I figured out the best “cure” for my issues, and it falls under the old “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” “Well, don’t do that.”, type.
They cause me problems, so I avoid them. Easy, done.
That, right there, is what I meant about the possibility that people react less to the details of your situation and more to your combative tone. Anne B actually got me wrong on this one.
Details of your situation: deserving of sympathy.
Combative tone & monomaniacal equating of being a future ally against rape with taking responsibility for past incidents of rape/betrayal: really, really irritating and offensive.
If you are getting antipathy at feminist sites when you tell your tale of woe, it’s because the second factor outweighs the first by a huge margin.
That’s a gross over-simplification of what’s being asked of men as allies in rape prevention.
Rape culture consists of a culture where rape is dismissed as not an important problem, not that frequent or traumatic, and where it is socially acceptable in many contexts for men to make jokes about it.
Being a male ally against rape simply means refusing to be part of that belittling of and apologism for rape. Don’t be drinking buddies with guys who indulge in it. Don’t stand there silent while it happens – if you can’t call it out because of your own safety concerns, then at least walk away. Let these apologist men become isolated from rather than insulated by a wall of other men, because then it’s harder for them to delude themselves that “ordinary men” approve of what they are saying.
That can, of course, be a problem if one doesn’t realise at the beginning of a relationship that one is going to discover at a later date that one “can’t resist the temptation”. Not all deceit that happens in relationships is connived at consciously right from the start. People are often weaker than they would have ever wanted to be, and don’t want to face that about themselves, so deceit becomes part of that denial. Cold-blooded emotional con artists certainly do exist, whether male or female, straight or LGBTQ, but they are in the minority. Most sexual deceit involves an unplanned morass of unexpected temptation and moral cowardice.
Combative tone & monomaniacal equating of being a future ally against rape with taking responsibility for past incidents of rape/betrayal: really, really irritating and offensive.
It’s offensive to assume that it’s my responsibility to stop future men from having the attitude that leads to rape. Yes, rape is atrocious and awful. I don’t commit rape. I am not a therapist, nor counsellor, nor police officer. The job of preventing rape falls between those three, and the rapist himself.
That can, of course, be a problem if one doesn’t realise at the beginning of a relationship that one is going to discover at a later date that one “can’t resist the temptation”. Not all deceit that happens in relationships is connived at consciously right from the start. People are often weaker than they would have ever wanted to be, and don’t want to face that about themselves, so deceit becomes part of that denial. Cold-blooded emotional con artists certainly do exist, whether male or female, straight or LGBTQ, but they are in the minority. Most sexual deceit involves an unplanned morass of unexpected temptation and moral cowardice.
I don’t buy that. It’s not an issue of “weakness” or “it just happened”. You are in conscious control of your every action. Doing something like that isn’t weakness, it’s selfishness. There’s a huge difference.
Tigtog, Sorry for misinterpreting. I totally mis-read the sentence. Now that it’s clear we’re talking about cheating, I see how my “two sides” comment doesn’t apply. Cheating is wrong. It is not, however, comparable to rape, because it is not a violent crime.
Your emotional baggage is yours no matter who you are or what you’ve been through. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t feel compassion for each other as human beings. It doesn’t mean we have to be alone. It just means that no one else can work through our thoughts and feelings for us. Sure, the actions of others can impact the healing process, just like someone writing a prescription helps a sore throat, but you’ve gotta swallow your own medicine. I would not hesitate to give that same advice to a rape victim who was stuck in a place of anger or denial and refusing to acknowledge what s/he was going through. As a matter of fact, I have given that advice to rape victims before, although a bit more delicately, because they weren’t being combative.
You’re not the only person here who’s ever had their heart broken, D. These things take time and energy. Being reluctant to trust women: totally normal for the recently betrayed. Being angry at your ex: totally normal for the recently betrayed. Being angry at a feminists: embarrassing and counterproductive.
No worries, Anne. Your reply still brought up some good points despite the misinterpretation.
but you’ve gotta swallow your own medicine.
I did. I made the choice of that which would improve my situation the most, and followed through with it.
Being reluctant to trust women: totally normal for the recently betrayed. Being angry at your ex: totally normal for the recently betrayed.
Recently, yes. Every single time? Also, yes. Am I exaggerating? No.
I think I’m quite completely justified in not trusting women, at all.
Being angry at a feminists: embarrassing and counterproductive.
No, it was more that I was curious about the double-standard being applied.
It’s offensive to assume that it is NOT your responsibility to avoid contributing, even through silent complicity, to the attitude that leads to rape.
ON ANOTHER WEBSITE, ALLEGEDLY. Nobody here has called you a misogynist for being mistrustful of women. You allege that somewhere else that you haven’t linked to did so. Without being able to read the conversation, we can’t have an opinion on the dynamics of that interaction.
That’s your three comments for today, by the way, D.
Updated to add:
This conversation does bring up some interesting points on the distinctions between wariness, mistrust/distrust and antipathy.
Wariness is a totally rational response to previous instances of harm, either physical or emotional.
Generalised mistrust/distrust, while understandable and natural, is less rational and more of a rationalisation of a deeper anxiety about the potential for harm from another person.
When that generalised mistrust/distrust degenerates into a broad contempt, disgust and antipathy, then we have the fully irrational and non-constructive response of hating.
What happens, over and over, is that women who express simple wariness are accusing of general mistrust and hating. There is a very big difference, but the distinctions are not being made. Rael failed to make those distinctions in the comment that initiated this whole discussion of trust. He misinterpreted the story of the particular blogger he was paraphrasing in any case (“She has a total inablity to trust men”), as that blogger actually did have a long term relationship with a man whom she was able to trust despite her earlier traumas and subsequent wariness.
I’m also reminded of this earlier discussion on what rape apologism/denialism actually involves.
This is what the trivialising of rape consists of – victim-blaming, denials, excuses and the refusal to adequately examine issues of active consent.
Male allies are asked to avoid contributing to trivialising rape in this fashion. If a man is already not hanging around with men who trivialise rape, then that man is not part of the problem. If it’s not about you then it’s not about you.
It’s offensive to assume that it is NOT your responsibility to avoid contributing, even through silent complicity, to the attitude that leads to rape.
I don’t rape. As said, I am not a cop, a therapist, or a rapist. That’s the extent of my responsibility.
Wariness is a totally rational response to previous instances of harm, either physical or emotional.
Generalised mistrust/distrust, while understandable and natural, is less rational and more of a rationalisation of a deeper anxiety about the potential for harm from another person.
When that generalised mistrust/distrust degenerates into a broad contempt, disgust and antipathy, then we have the fully irrational and non-constructive response of hating.
Generalised mistrust/distrust does not equal hating. Even if it did, who are you to say what is or is not constructive? It’s constructive if the individual says it is.
Or are you only worrying about how someone else’s personal business affects you?
Also, of course distrust is a response (very rational) about being concerned about future harm. If you touch a hot stove, and it burns, you learn not to touch the hot stove again.
What happens, over and over, is that women who express simple wariness are accusing of general mistrust and hating.
So are men.
Generalised mistrust/distrust does not equal hating. Even if it did, who are you to say what is or is not constructive? It’s constructive if the individual says it is.
Oh yeah. Also, sadly, there is this little issue about power that every people with the ‘let’s be gender-blind!’ argument forgets. Women’s experience is not the same as men’s experience, so their respective ‘mistrust’ isn’t the same and doesn’t have the same effects. Women are the less powerful group, usually these groups experiment more abuse from than (and from) the powerful group. They mistrust men? Well, they don’t have their privileges. Minorities aren’t wary of majorities because one of them cheated romantically. Minorities live all their lives experimenting (different kinds of) dehumanization and disadvantage from being the ‘other’ to the majority.
What happens, over and over, is that women who express simple wariness are accusing of general mistrust and hating.
So are men.
Do we have to have this conversation every single time a new man comes here?
As I said, if you already are not associating with men who trivialise rape and marginalise rape victims, then this is not about you. However, there’s a whole culture out there which does do these things, and men who want to work against rape know that there is more that they can do.
From a meme that went around in 2006, which is called “Only Rapists Can Stop Rape”, there is a list of 25 items. The first 16 are all aimed at actual rapists, but the other 9 are aimed at men who are not rapists but who might find themselves in a situation where other men are displaying rape or rape approval behaviour:
I am thankful that some women here have made the distinction between men who hate women and men who love women. It makes it easier to hear the angry words some feminists have spoken and written and understand “it’s not about me.”
Personally, I know that women can be every bit as smart and talented and hard working as their male counterparts. I see them as equals. Nothing angers me more than men who perpetrate acts of violence against women. I love women and I hope that one of these days I will have the love of a good woman who loves men as much as I love women.
Personally, I think it is important that womens’ issues be addressed. It’s also important that mens’ issues be addressed. The one regret I have about people in feminist and masculist movements is that they tend to see things as a zero sum game. It is better to work together with each other, get you what you want, get us what we want, and when there is conflict, sit down and work things out.
While I definitely empathize with women who have been abused, I hope that women never forget about the men who love women and would risk their lives to protect them.
Mark, it seems like you’re taking some excellent steps towards becoming an ally for women. Because you want to be an ally, I’m going to bring up a few issues that your comment raised for me in the hopes that you will think about my points, and not dismiss them out of hand like some men who don’t want to work with women to create a better society for everyone.
Most feminists don’t see advancing women’s liberation as a “zero sum game.” Many, many feminists talk about ways society can be better for everyone, including destroying harmful stereotypes about masculinity. What makes you think feminism is “zero sum”?
Also, have you ever tried to talk to your typical Men’s Rights Advocate? I have, and they don’t seem very interested in working things out- their negotiation strategies involve trying to insult me with variations on “you’re a girl!!!!”
Lastly, while you probably meant well, your final comment reminding women who were abused to remember the “men who love women and would risk their lives to protect them,” is offensive. We don’t want protection given to us by good men, we want bad men to stop committing acts of violence. If we need a man to protect us, that severely limits our personal freedom. Think about how you would feel if the situation was reversed. And try to realize that as a man, you should not be giving advice to women who are struggling to survive abuse, especially “remember the men” advice. We’ve been hurt, abused, our trust betrayed, and a man is telling us, “but we’re not all like that?” You’d get a much better response actually doing something that demonstrates that not all men are like that, such as starting a men’s anti-rape group. I hope you’re able to read this and get past a totally normal defensive reaction to consider what I’m saying. We all are constantly learning about feminism and being allies, we all make mistakes, the thing that makes us good feminists/allies is learning from them rather than defending them.
Dear Mark,
I find your letter reassuring. I found no offense whatsoever in the statement you made about protecting the woman you love. Women can also protect the man they love as well. I don’t see your comment as women needing a man to protect us. You are just showing that you have passion for women. I am a strong feminist and I find myself getting in these moods where I hate all men. That is counter productive and not healthy. My poor boyfriend is paying for past mistakes. He has learned a great deal about women because I have given him a perspective about our society and others that no other woman has done. They just stopped seeing him rather than educating him. Slowly but surely, we can educate men about issues that promote a woman’s cause and not set them back into the dark ages.
Mark, could you explain your reasoning behind this “zero sum game” thing? I have to admit that it sounds to me like concern trolling, but I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt and let you explain. How is it that you look at people who are constantly repeating “Patriarchy hurts men, too,” who are just about the only people who speak out for male victims of rape and don’t think it’s a joke, who are always talking about how traditional perceptions of masculinity and are pretty much the only people who actually care about how men suffer under a an unequal society, then call it a “zero sum game”?
The only thing I can think of is that you’re responding to some feminist complaining about the “What about the men?” phenomenon. In which case, you can look here:
As for your claim that being loved by a man means being kept under his wing (and that I should even be happy and grateful for it), please see here:
Fmnsts ht mn, bcs th dvc thy gv bt mn rfrs t ll f thm nt nly t msgynsts..
S th msgynst rgmnt s bvs bll..
W(s mn) wld lv y ln n yr mnhtng crnr, nd nt bthr y wth r psts, bt nfrtntly yr “dls” r bggrng chldrn p t rcrd rt..
Jst lk t th sttstcs f fthrlss fmls(80% f ffndrs cm frm thr, lng lst) t ndrstnd tht myb y shld rlx bt, bfr yr “mvmnt” s trtd s t dsrvs t…
[…] if it were true. Good thing, then, that it’s not (this is discussed in more detail in the Why do you feminists hate men? FAQ […]
Added a Related Reading link and a Clarifying Concept.
I’m sorry if I’m out of place butting in with this comment two years later, but on D’s issues with women –
There is a difference between being cheated on by a person (individual choice) and being raped by a male (institutionalized choice). If a man gets cheated on by a women, then he is going to have trust issues, and that is blatantly obvious. But that’s an individual issue that needs to be worked through. A woman being raped by a man violates trust on a completely different level, both because rape is a violation of the physical self (versus the emotional bond established in a relationship) and because his girlfriend doesn’t cheat on him because she’s been told by every social image since her birth that she had the right to use the male body simply because he was born with a penis.
This also applies to the PHTM / WATM arguments, too. Men raping other men is wrong, obviously, but the social message – “I can use you because you are an object to be used; you are my property and not an actual human being because you were not born with the right genitals” – is absent.
/rant
I’m going to go back to lurking and reading now.
Men raping other men is wrong, obviously, but the social message – “I can use you because you are an object to be used; you are my property and not an actual human being because you were not born with the right genitals” – is absent
No, it isn’t, you are wrong. This same message is perceived by men who are victims of rape.
Feminists don’t hate men? What a joke. The entire foundation of feminism is based on the scapegoating of an entire gender. Scapegoating is a form of hatred.
Feminists use such buzzwords as “sexism” “patriarchy” and “misogyny” but they all ultimately mean “men”.
Probably one of the most profound ways that feminist declare their hatred of men is by not rooting out and denouncing those feminists who are most vocal about their hatred. The canned response is, “That’s not what I believe” or “They are a small number of feminists”.
Can you imaging any public organization that could get away with these kinds of statements if hatemongers were found in their midst? Could you imagine a University President responding to reports of professors spreading Neo Nazi ideas on campus by saying, “It’s just a few professors and they don’t represent this university”. She’d be fired on the spot. She would have to denounce those professors and work to remove them from the campus. It simply wouldn’t be tolerated.
But hatred is tolerated in feminism. And so long as hatred is tolerated and feminists see no need to distinguish themselves differently from the feminists who hate then ALL feminists are contributing and supporting this hatred. “Birds of a feather flock together”
Absolutely not. So which public feminist organisations are endorsing any of these vocal manhaters? Name and shame. Because unless these hatemongers are in fact representatives of public feminist organisations, then you’ve presented a false equivalence.
Just because someone is famous in the media as a feminist, doesn’t mean that she holds office in any public feminist organisation. How then might she be rooted out of organisations to which she doesn’t belong?
Ask and you shall receive.
[Moderator Note: I have edited out all quotes that are not alleged to have been made by an alleged spokeperson for a named public feminist organisation.]
“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW
I can go all day with this. If you want to look up some more just type in “feminist quotes” in a search engine and pages and pages will come up. Frankly, the very fact that you’ve never heard of any hatred is a clear sign of your lack of objectivity. If all you do is look at one side, which feminism historically has done, then you never see the big picture. And that’s sad because many feminists have taken those “values” into powerful positions on school boards, politics, and law.
I presume that quote is meant to come from Sheila Cronan, who I can find references to as a member of the Redstockings, but absolutely nothing in her bio that indicates she was even a member, let alone a leader, of NOW, although she was at least once interviewed for their magazine. So if she wasn’t actually the leader of NOW, what do you suggest that NOW could do to sanction her speech on this or any other matter?
Also, I don’t see that particular quote as especially man-hating, either. It’s certainly marriage-hating – but is that really the same thing?
I notice you didn’t respond to my other question about the Sheila Cronan quote you supplied:
Anything to say?
So if she wasn’t actually the leader of NOW, what do you suggest that NOW could do to sanction her speech on this or any other matter?
Is NOW the definitive feminist organization? There are many prominent feminists on the list of quotes I gave and which you censored.
Congresswomen, university heads, authors, judges, all of them prominent feminists.
But to answer your question. When feminists do not repudiate the hate speech of other feminists they are in fact condoning it and adopting it as their own. To allow some people to use hate speech and call themselves feminists means that this type of behavior is tolerated by all feminists. And if it is tolerated then it is rightly identified as feminist values.
So what should NOW do? What any organization is expected to do when bigotry is in their ranks. Renounce it, deny it, expose it, and make it clear that it won’t be tolerated and that it does not represent feminism. And at the least they should not give them a forum to speak or write their bigotry in their own publications.
Since that has not happened then clearly hatred of men is acceptable as a feminist value.
No, but it’s the only feminist organisation that you named. The whole point is that there is NO definitive feminist organisation.
But you didn’t name any feminist organisations that they are supposed to be speaking for. Since your original question was about public organisations denouncing such speech within their own ranks, how were any of those quotes remotely relevant?
So Congress gets to censure the Congresswomen, the Universities get to censure the academics, publishers get to censure their authors, judiciary systems get to censure their judges.
But Sheila Cronan was not in NOW’s ranks. Your quote that says she was a leader in NOW is utterly incorrect about that.
I am a feminist. I belong to zero feminist organisations. Are you getting it yet? If another feminist says something I disagree with, the only response I can make is to voice my disagreement. There is absolutely nothing more that I can do.
So what you are saying is that feminists aren’t responsible for the hate mongering of other feminists.
Great.
Using that same logic–Men aren’t responsible for whatever other men have done and said. Each of us is an individual with no real power to control anything.
Therefore, the next time you or any feminist says, “Men do this or that” you can re-phrase your statement that some men do this and the “People who have power are responsible”. (Although true empowerment does not stem from blaming others and empowering them to make better decisions for you.)
For the record the people who have power do not represent all men nor have they ever. They represent their own interests. Always have and always will. The vast majority of men, individually, have no power at all to affect government.
And in a democracy where women are the majority of citizens and where millions of men have lost the right to vote due to felony records, women grossly outnumber males at the voting box.
I’m not only saying that here, I’ve got a whole FAQ devoted to it.
There is no feminist pope who can excommunicate another feminist for saying something they disagree with. There are people I wish were not Australian citizens because they are shameful embarrassments to my nation, but there’s nothing I can do about getting them stripped of their passport. Feminism doesn’t even have passports.
Absolutely, every individual is responsible for what they themselves do and say. Organisations are responsible for upholding the rules of their organisation by disciplining those who bring their organisation into disrepute. People cannot be disciplined by an organisation to which they do not belong.
That’s a fatuous overreaching misinterpretation of what I wrote. We can all control ourselves for a start, and who we do and do not associate with.
And you of course can give me a link of where I have ever said “Men do this or that” rather than “men who do this or that” or “when men do this or that”. Also, noting that stereotypes exist regarding what men do and what women do and that these stereotypes are contributing to sexist inequality is not the same as endorsing the stereotypes.
“There is no feminist pope who can excommunicate another feminist for saying something they disagree with. There are people I wish were not Australian citizens because they are shameful embarrassments to my nation, but there’s nothing I can do about getting them stripped of their passport. Feminism doesn’t even have passports.”
What we typically do is denounce such people as “unaustralian.” That is our way of, collectively, distancing ourselves from the actions of others of our kind whose philosophy is inconsistent with our own.
Similarly, might we also say that a self proclaimed feminist who, perhaps, advocates an action inconsistent with equality is “unfeminist”? That’s hypothetical, of course. However, I believe that Jean is of the opinion that different feminist groups are too tolerant of views inconsistent with theirs claimed as feminist views. I don’t know if that’s the case, but if it is, I could see how that could be construed as tacit approval.
Another example might be Muslim terrorist extremism. Muslims belong to many different organisations who all describe themselves as such. The actions of terrorist extremists are often denounced as not being consistent with Muslim teachings by other Muslims. Now, I’ve never seen a feminist terrorist bomber, but I’m not sure that counters Jean’s point…
I don’t denounce any other holder of an Australian passport as “unaustralian” because that sort of tribalism very rapidly becomes ugly, and what right do I have to claim that my way of thinking represents other Australians anyway? I think it’s part of the perpetuating of ugly tribalist ways of viewing things that ‘we’ require some sort of ritual denunciation rather than just a clear statement of disagreement.
Well, we clearly have different views on this, so I won’t go on about it. However, as Australians there is a sense of fair play that we tend to strive for. It’s a collective value system – societies tend to have these. Whether the particular value system is good or bad isn’t really the issue here.
What is at issue is what do you do about it if you feel someone is misrepresenting the values of your group. My point was simply that individuals or sub-groups in many loosely associated groups have a way of distancing themselves from those other views. They simply say that “those views aren’t consistent with what we would associate with our movement/group.”
If you don’t like the term ‘unaustralian’ that’s fine. A simple statement of disagreement is ok. But if someone said being Australian is about winning at all costs, and cheating if necessary, I would state my disagreement. Similarly, if a person were to claim feminism was about wiping out men so women could live happily, I dare say it would be appropriate for other feminists (especially organisations), to stress that such a view isn’t widely held as a feminist agenda (for example).
The trouble with this is that it’s only loud denunciations which get media attention on pages 1-5, which is all that most people read. So if an organisation’s spokespeople repeatedly, persistently stick to saying simply “[Controversial Person] speaks only for hirself, not for us” then the media will publish it on page 15 at best, most people will never read it, and then others will claim that no disavowal has ever been made.
These people who claim that all feminists support extremist views about gender segregation etc? Show me the statements of vociferous support instead of making an argument from silence.
Men aren’t responsible for whatever other men have done and said.
I would agree with that in most cases (exceptions for where they have intimidated/coerced/etc other men into doing/saying something).
Each of us is an individual with no real power to control anything.
I disagree with this. As an individual, each of us has the power to control his/her own response to the world.
It is for that reason that I speak out against hate mongering, particularly in groups where my voice is valued and people will listen. I do not go onto MRA sites and post “not all feminists hate men!” and expect to be praised for my comment. Context matters.
But Sheila Cronan was not in NOW’s ranks. Your quote that says she was a leader in NOW is utterly incorrect about that.
I quoted that from a site on the Internet. I found it in multiple places.
Let me ask you this. To your knowledge has NOW ever denounced hate speech by any feminist? Show me where.
Who were all copying each other. Go and find an actual biography of her that isn’t on an MRA site that lists her affiliations. NOW is not there.
NOW is not responsible for “any feminist”. The actions of any feminist who is not a member of NOW do not bring NOW into disrepute except amongst broad-brush smearers like yourself.
I agree that we can’t really draw any conclusion from what people/organisations don’t say. This isn’t something I do, but the perceptions of the general public are shaped in many ways – and some of them aren’t fair.
I just think that if it was me, and someone else was corrupting something I was passionate about I would speak up against their interpretation. To me that’s part of being an activist.
If we want a better world then we are going to have to challenge all of the ideas that are dragging us down. Maybe some of the groups we are talking about already do this be stating their views without making reference to the contrary views of others, I don’t know. It just seems like that would be a rather passive approach from a movement constantly challenging more mainstream views.
Of course, maybe the problem is Jean hasn’t read page 15. I can’t say, as I don’t tend to read NOW’s media releases.
I agree, but let’s note
(a) neither of us knows what NOW or other organisations have said 30 or 40 years ago about controversial feminists largely because the media didn’t care then and still doesn’t care now what moderate feminists say, they just cover the controversial stuff.
(b) I’m not going to go out of my way to make a big deal about denouncing or disowning something allegedly said/written 30 or 40 years ago, that I’ve never even heard of before, just because some monomaniac has decided to start cutting and pasting it all over the interwebs (without any valid citation), and I don’t expect any other feminist to do so either. If someone claiming to speak for feminists was writing/saying these things right now, I’d address them. But they’re not.
Fair enough. Good points. I was speaking mostly in principle. When it comes to the more specific situation I agree with your assessment.
First and foremost, let me apologize for not leaving a regularly checked email. I’d rather not receive solicitation from any website on my main email if I can possibly help it.
I took the time to read through the article as well as all the comments and noticed a recurring theme. That theme is the repeatedly mentioned phrase that “if it’s not about you, then it’s not about you.” The problem is, that phrase really does nothing to absolve the feeling that one is being targeted by such a statement and only serves to make one feel even more as though they’re the target of aggression because the feel offended by a comment they’re being told they shouldn’t be. A good example of this would be the girl who posted a video to youtube complaining about “Asians talking on their cell phones in the library,” amongst other things. She even amended that she hated when people in general talked on the cell phones, and it really had nothing to do with Asians at all. She also made it clear she was only talking about Asians who actually partook in the behaviors she was describing, and it didn’t apply to anyone else. However, that didn’t stop people from being upset. They were upset because something they closely identified with was being insulted even if they themselves weren’t being insulted or called out. The analogy is a bit shaky since nobody here is going to such extremes, but I hope that the point was clear. If one makes a generalization about something people can strongly identify with, one runs the risk of upsetting and offending people who identify with whatever it is that is being addressed but don’t necessarily fit into the true group one was addressing.
I’d love to cover more, and intend to later if you wouldn’t mind,but it’s rather late and this comment has run long enough without getting to what I was intending to talk about. I was actually linked here through a different feminist website named Smashing Patriarchy. In fact, it was this topic that directed me here in the first place. My question is what is your opinion of the site as well as the people who appear to be the main posters (from your perspective)? And ,actually if you don’t mind, I’d really like to hear your opinion on the entire topic. While this comment is more-or-less specifically addressed towards tigtog, I’d love to hear anyone else’s opinion on it as well.