Feminism and Men’s Rights

There is a persisting misconception about feminism: that feminism is opposed to men’s rights. I wish I could clear that misunderstanding because it’s something I have to explain time and again when people accuse me (and feminists in general) of hating men. I keep repeating it like a broken record: feminism is not about being against men, or about hating men. Feminists pursue equality for men and women. That does not imply wanting to elevate women above men. The word equality itself should state it plainly enough that it’s about equality, not about trampling on men.

But it seems there are always people who don’t understand how you can support the rights of women without being against men, so feminists get blamed for the most horrible things. Recently I was accused of supporting a movement that supports the genital mutilation of little boys. I don’t know where this attitude comes from. Feminists may be focused on women’s issues but that does not mean we support mutilation, abuse or hatred of boys and men. Just because I’m saying, “Look, women face problems in our society!” does not mean I’m negating men’s problems!

To reverse the situation: I have no problem with people who are working to help men and boys. I think it’s fantastic that there are people who are campaigning against the genital mutilation of boys. I support them wholeheartedly, and I would never go to them to accuse them of supporting the genital mutilation of girls just because they are trying to help boys! And when people are trying to raise awareness of the domestic and sexual violence encountered by men and boys, I don’t accuse them of supporting violence against women because they are speaking out for men.

I understand that wanting to help boys does not imply the wish to make things worse for girls, so I don’t see why I should get blamed for being against men because I’m speaking out for women. I’m not against men and I don’t think I have ever given reason to assume that I am. But because feminism is so often misunderstood as being anti-men, perhaps I should start including disclaimers to my posts, to state it explicitly that even though I’m talking about women, I’m not doing it to harm men.

Advertisements

About inmyinternest

A thirty-something woman, watching the world turn
This entry was posted in Culture, Equality, Feminism, Men, Women and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Feminism and Men’s Rights

  1. My father-in-law is Jewish, so when my husband was born his parents had an enormous argument concerning ritual mutilation. Fortunately his mother won. I think it’s an outdated practice which should only ever be considered for medical reasons!

    • On principle, I think people should have the right to preserve their religious and cultural customs, but not when they violate the bodily autonomy of others.

      • Precisely my point. If circumcision is to be continued then I feel that it ought to be up to the boy once he’s old enough to decide for himself – not a thing that is done *to* him because of a religious belief. If foreskin is so “unclean” in some cultures, why is it nature that puts it there?

        • I have some reservations about circumcision even when the boys are older. I saw a documentary where about nine-year-old boys had the operation, and they all professed to be eager to get it done. It was a masculinity rite for them, the boys didn’t feel manly as long as they had that bit of skin. They were given proper anaesthetics and the instruments were hygienic, and afterwards the boys were praised for being so brave. They got diplomas of bravery to take home and show to their friends.

          The boys were willing to have the operation done but how could they have been anything else when they had been brought up to believe that they wouldn’t be proper men unless they were circumcised! It wasn’t really the kids’ decision, they were just doing what they were expected to do. I don’t think they were informed about how the procedure would affect their sex lives later on.

          Circumcision does have some health benefits. It reduces infections both for the men and their partners, and the partners of circumcised men have fewer gynecological cancers. Still, nine-year-olds aren’t old enough to weigh health benefits and other consequences of the operation.

  2. Socialkenny says:

    Feminism aka femi-nazism is horrible.

    It’s the greatest disaster to mankind beside religion and lesbianism.

    • You might want to have a look at my comment policy. I don’t see the word “feminazi” as very witty or funny. It’s a tired old joke and far from apt, seeing as feminism and nazism have nothing in common. I’ll publish your comments even if you disagree with me but not if you keep using abusive language.

  3. To help women cause is certain not to oppose men’s rights. I agree with you totally on that count. Even to be out and out feminist is not to oppose and oppress the other gender.

  4. DaPoet says:

    Re: There is a persisting misconception about feminism: that feminism is opposed to men’s rights. I wish I could clear that misunderstanding because it’s something I have to explain time and again when people accuse me (and feminists in general) of hating men.
    _______________________________

    ““I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”” Ice And Fire – Andrea Dworkin

    ““Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.””
    Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students – Catherine Comin

    ““I feel that ‘‘man-hating’’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.””
    Ms. Magazine Editor. – Robin Morgan

    ”” How will the family unit be destroyed? ……[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.””
    In ““Female Liberation”” – Roxanne Dunbarr

    ““We can’’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.””
    From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 – Robin Morgan

    The goal of feminism has always been to destroy the two parent family composed of a man and a women – to disenfranchise and marginalize men economically {enslave them to women} and to reduce the male population by 90%.

    You can follow the link below to the article on my blog to access the links that support my contention that the fourth wave of feminism has already begun to rise and advocate for the reduction of the male gender.

    http://dapoetshadow.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-road-to-male-genocide/

    • I think you’re confusing feminism and misandry. As for the claim that anyone would want to reduce the male population… wow… it’s the craziest thing I’ve heard in a while! It really takes the cake.

    • Congratulations! You’ve pulled out some random quotes and stuck them all together, proving beyond all doubt that in the history of time there have been some women guilty of misandry.

      Which isn’t what feminism is.

      The goal to reduce the male population by 90%? Oh my God! How on Earth did you inflitrate one of our top secret meetings?

      • Yeah… I still can’t tell if that male genocide accusation was made seriously, or simply to get a reaction. Thinking back, that comment belongs in the troll bin. Then again, it wasn’t abusive and I don’t want to start censoring comments just because they’re batshit crazy… though I prefer sane comments.

  5. Pingback: That Dirty, Nasty, Horrible F-word « Femiblogged

  6. darkproxy says:

    Well you belive domestic violence is largely against women when it is actually more of a 50/50 split. That is against Men’s rights to be acknowlegded as victims of women.

    • Really? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? I believe that women are the victims of domestic violence more often than men because that’s what crime statistics say. If there’s any evidence supporting the 50/50 ratio, even one policeman, nurse, doctor or social worker who encounters as many male domestic violence victims as female, then I’m willing to believe it.

      Of course, many men never report the domestic violence they experience because of the social stigma, so there’s probably much more of it going on than we know about. But still, based on current evidence, I find the 50/50 ratio a little hard to believe. Bear in mind that many female victims never report violence, either.

      But that’s beside the point, really. It’s not men against women, or women against men. I’m not saying I believe women are victims more often than men because I’m trying to deflect attetion away from violence committed by women, or to make men look bad. I’m saying it because in view of current evidence, that seems to be the truth.

      But please understand, even if the majority of the victims are women, that doesn’t IN ANY WAY cancel out the fact that men can be victims too. Or even if the ratio of male and female victims is 50/50, it doesn’t cancel out the suffering of the female victims. Every single man who suffers from domestic violence has the right to be acknowledged as a victim. Just like every single female victim has that right. These things are not mutually exclusive.

      What is really getting in the way of men’s right to be recognised as victims is patriarchy. It’s the patriarchic worldview that produces the notion that women are always passive victims and men are violent and aggressive by nature. Patriarchic machismo causes men to feel shamed and emasculated if they fall victims to domestic violence. Female victims feel shame and worthlessness, too, but at least the society doesn’t expect them to just stick it out or deal with it on their own based on the assumption that they are the stronger gender, so they can sort it out.

      Because of the patriarchic perception of gender, men who report domestic violence may not be taken seriously. The attitude is, “How bad can it be if a woman hits you? Be a man, defend yourself!” Such an attitude is really harmful to the victim, as is the ridicule he might face. But if you’re blaming feminists for this, you’re barking at the wrong tree! Blame the patriarchy.

      • fbombsucks says:

        Are you serious. How can you claim to be so imbedded and so informed on anything to do with womens rights. for the 50/50 stat I suggest googling Erin Pizzey and follow the links for resources from ManWomanMyth.com. The truth is out there you simply choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit in with your ideology.
        I love that you are requiring sources. Yet when you and your feminist buddies claim figures it certainly isn’t neccessary to include a source.
        How can you claim that feminism is supporting mens rights? Or equality? women now make up 55% of university students. Why aren’t you complaining about that inequality?

        “It’s the patriarchic worldview that produces the notion that women are always passive victims and men are violent and aggressive by nature.”
        WRONG – that is a feminist veiw of the world!

        The problem with feminism is the lies it spreads. It claims that 1in4 women are victims but never puts it into perspective 1 in 6 men from the same report are victims. Further the feminist claim of 2 women a week are killed from DV in the UK. One man dies as well… 2 more will commit suicied as a result. 350 women die per week from pneumonia.

        There is a common misconceotion about feminism: that it is what the dictionary says it is.

        • darkproxy says:

          can you give me sources that don’t go straight to Ms magazine and unifem? In anycase my sources are the CDC you know the group that documents stuff like domestic violence. The battered men’s group has a very nice domestic violence report with very legit sources http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm. Oddly the only person here being agressively rude is you.

          • Who is being rude? Me or fbomsucks? I didn’t see fbomsucks’ comment as particularly rude and I don’t intend to be rude myself. Sorry if I seem that way. However, I chose not to publish your other comment because it was pretty insulting.

            You ask me to give sources that don’t go to Ms magazine (whatever that is) and unifem but you yourself refer to a site called MenWeb? Okay….

            Anyway, I checked it out and the author of the article, Bert H. Hoff also appears to be the webmaster of MenWeb, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his objectivity, as you can probably understand, seeing as you yourself aren’t inclined to trust research done by feminists. Still, Hoff is doing valuable work in offering male victims of violence knowledge and support.

            U.S. National Institute of Justice should be an unbiased source so I would refer you to this page: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm especially the part under the heading “Are Men and Women Equally as Likely to Be Victims or Offenders?”

        • darkproxy says:

          Comment removed due to abusiveness.

        • I am serious but I’m also perfectly willing to accept new facts. However, quick googling of Erin Pizzey still didn’t give any support to the claim that in 50 percent of domestic cases, women are perpetrators. Pizzey’s study revealed that 62 % of the female victims of domestic violence were also violent themselves (or sought violent relationships due to personal traumas). That’s not exactly a revelation but it is an important thing to consider when discussing domestic violence. But it doesn’t mean there are as many male victims as there are female. It just means that 62 % of the female victims are also violent, so the violence has been mutual in those relationships. But “mutual” isn’t the same as “equal.” In a fight, the stronger one usually deals more damage than the weaker. Sometimes the woman can be the stronger one, but the biological fact remains that on average, men are bigger and stronger than women.

          ““It’s the patriarchic worldview that produces the notion that women are always passive victims and men are violent and aggressive by nature.”
          WRONG – that is a feminist veiw of the world!”

          I’m sorry, but that’s hilarious. For the past 100 years or so, women have struggled for a more active role in the society and in the family. Most feminists think the differences between the genders are in large part cultural. What is considered manly or feminine behaviour is defined by culture, and our culture has been extremely patriarchal until very recently. Obviously, some of the differences between men and women are due to hormones but feminists assert that women are capable of being proactive, bold and even aggressive, hormones notwithstanding. If some “feminist” claims women are passive little dolls and men are horrible brutes, you can be sure that person is not really a feminist, or doesn’t understand feminism.

          “How can you claim that feminism is supporting mens rights? Or equality? women now make up 55% of university students. Why aren’t you complaining about that inequality?”

          Feminism supports equality between genders. I find it absurd to have to explain this but… equality means that everyone has equal rights. “Everyone” means men, too. You didn’t specify which country’s university students you were talking about? The percentage varies from country to country but as long as men and women are on an equal footing when students are admitted into universities, and the student selection isn’t favouring either gender, I don’t see a problem.

          “It claims that 1in4 women are victims but never puts it into perspective 1 in 6 men from the same report are victims.”

          What report is that? Is that domestic violence victims or rape victims? Or all violence statistics put together? In which country? Either way, those are staggering numbers. A society where 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men gets assaulted is a very violent society. But if that statistics is accurate, it’s far from the 50/50 gender ratio, as you may notice. Women get attacked more often than men. And that is the reason feminists talk so much about violence encountered by women: there is a gender bias in violence.

          But you know, talking about women’s problems in no way negates men’s problems. Some people are focused on reducing violence encountered by men, some are focused on reducing violence towards women, and some are trying to figure out ways to eliminate all kinds of violence, and all of these people are doing good work.

          I talk about violence encountered by women (because of the gender bias in violence). But I don’t object to talking about violence encountered by men. Both are serious problems. I only object to people making false claims.

          • fbombsucks says:

            First of all you need to do more research. Try looking for statistics on domestic violence that haven’t been missinterpreted or twisted by feminists. Go look for raw data. Its hard to fin because of feminist propaganda but it is there. There you will find that whilst women come off second best in domestic violence they are by no means any less violent then men. In other words domestic violence is not a gender issue its a human issue.

            “I’m sorry, but that’s hilarious. For the past 100 years or so, women have struggled for a more active role in the society and in the family. Most feminists think the differences between the genders are in large part cultural. What is considered manly or feminine behaviour is defined by culture, and our culture has been extremely patriarchal until very recently. Obviously, some of the differences between men and women are due to hormones but feminists assert that women are capable of being proactive, bold and even aggressive, hormones notwithstanding. If some “feminist” claims women are passive little dolls and men are horrible brutes, you can be sure that person is not really a feminist, or doesn’t understand feminism.”

            I’m sorry but this is hilarious. The notion that men are brutes and that women have succomb to this brutishness (if thats a word) – makes women passive. This notion is one fundumnetal of feminism! [Edited by moderator to remove abusive language.]

            Obviously most differences between men and women are due to hormones released due to different chromosones that exist.

            “I only object to people making false claims.”

            So why do I not see you objecting the false claims of your fellow feminists? Why aren’t you calling them out for outrageous studies of the famous Ms.Magazines 1 in 4 statistic. Why aren’t you calling out the Harriot Harmons of the world who want to pass legistlation that a woman should be able to claim premeditated murder of her husband as self defense? Why are you not calling out your fellow feminists that domesetic violence is a human issue not a gender issue? Why are you not calling out your fellow feminists who protested against ‘the male pill’. Why are you supporting the false claims of unequal pay for women?

            Is it becuase you support all these false claims? Or is it becuase without them you would actually have nothing to be fighting for?

            • It seems to me that you might benefit from doing some research outside the anti-feminist propaganda sites. Your view of feminism is very different from mine. Also, “feminist propaganda” does not distort violence statistics. Those numbers come from police reports and other official records.

              Here’s the page I already linked to earlier in this discussion. It provides some useful information about domestic violence and the analysis of survey results: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm

              “The notion that men are brutes and that women have succomb to this brutishness (if thats a word) – makes women passive. This notion is one fundumnetal of feminism!”

              I believe you’re referring to the notion of patriarchy? But that’s a somewhat twisted misrepresentation of it. The notion of patriarchy is fundamental to feminism, and it’s true that patriarchy forced women into a passive role in the society. But that doesn’t mean that men are inherently brutish and women are inherently passive. It’s about social structures and dynamics, not about the qualities of men and women.

              If feminists thought women are naturally passive and docile, then we would have had nothing to complain about in the first place! But clearly, feminists did have something against the way things were (and still are, to some extent). Women are not naturally passive and docile, so we’re not happy with being passive and docile in the society or in relationships. The patriarchal stereotypes about men’s roles are equally harmful to men, especially the ones who do not identify with those stereotypes.

              “So why do I not see you objecting the false claims of your fellow feminists?”

              I’m just one person. I can’t be everywhere objecting whenever someone makes a false claim. I don’t know what MsMagazine is and I’ve never heard of Harriet Harmons. There is nothing false about unequal pay and I have never heard about feminists protesting against the male pill.* But for your information, I do object to it when “fellow” feminists make false claims. But you should understand that feminists are not a homogenous entity. We are men and women with different values and opinions, and not all feminists agree with each other about everything. The only common denominator between all feminists is that we believe men and women are equally human, and should be treated as such.

              * From what I know about the male pill, the ones that have been tested have had some serious side-effects, such as impotency. But there is a safe and effective method contraception for men, if only it gets the funding. All the feminists I know are thrilled about it because it would bring equality to birth control: https://inmyinternest.wordpress.com/2012/03/27/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men-techcitement/

              • fbombsucks says:

                http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/measuring.htm
                1) I find this survey a little inadequate, they changed the survey technique half way through the male survey.
                2) This is one survey among many. They admit that there survey deviated in findings from other recent surveys.
                3) The author has been on the violence by men against women campaign since the 1970s – I would suggest she has subjective rather than objective twist to her studies.
                The following report is based on not one but many surveys conducted over time

                http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/GOLDENSON-SPIDEL-GREAVES-DUTTON-2009-FEMALE-PERPETRATORS-OF-INTIMATE-PARTNER-VIOLENCE.pd
                http://www.scribd.com/doc/34007126/Dutton-Nicholls-The-Gender-Paradigm-in-Domestic-Violence-Research-and-Theory-Part-1%E2%80%94The-Conflict-of-Theory-and-Data-2005
                There are many more but feminists make sure they never get much media attention.
                “I’m just one person. I can’t be everywhere objecting whenever someone makes a false claim.”
                This is the problem of all feminists. When (on the very rare occasion) feminism achieves something good, every one of you steps forward to receive the praise. On the flip side when feminism does something bad every one of you makes the above comment. It’s your ideology, you support it therefore you share the responsibility. You just dont want to.
                “I don’t know what MsMagazine is and I’ve never heard of Harriet Harmons.”
                Harriet Harmon is the UK minister for women. Ms Magazine came up with the infamous 1 in 4 college rape statistic. This is one of the most misandric lies feminism has come up with – ALL ON ITS OWN. You being a feminist, and one who won’t speak out against it, makes you part of the problem and therefore responsible

                • The first link you posted didn’t work. The second article doesn’t read as unbiased scientific treatment of the subject, seeing as how the authors seem to assume “feminists” are an entity that distorts surveys and reports. Sure, there probably are some crackpot feminist researchers who see everything through their own feminist views, but their anti-feminist counterparts are just as unreliable.

                  I’m not an expert on violence statistics in all the countries. I get my information from regular newspapers, mainly Aamulehti and Helsingin Sanomat. They publish surveys from time to time, especially in connection to reports of violent crimes. The interesting thing is, when interviewed, police officers always concur that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims are women, which is also noticeable in the ER. If the journalists from Aamulehti or Helsingin Sanomat ever happened to interview a police officer who said, “Actually, there are as many male victims as female,” that would be major news, front page story. So unless you think all police officers (and doctors, triage nurses and social workers) are part of a global feminist conspiracy to hush up the existence of male victims, it would appear that the surveys and statistics aren’t that far from the truth.

                  Of course, like I said before, the statistics aren’t entirely accurate because men don’t always report domestic violence and other assaults because they’re too ashamed, because their injuries don’t require hospital treatment or because they don’t see their experiences as violence. That’s a problem, and no one with half a brain would suggest otherwise. Still, bear in mind that women don’t always report violence either. Many female victims of domestic abuse go to extreme lengths to hide the violence. The female victims may also be ashamed, or too scared, to go to the police. But when someone gets seriously beaten up, they show up in the ER. You can interepret statistics in any way you like, and you can call them inadequate or untrustworthy, but if you go to a triage nurse and ask about the numbers of battered women and battered men, they’ll tell you that more battered women than men come there to get patched up.

                  Don’t get me wrong. I don’t believe in a feminist conspiracy that distorts all statistics (expect the ones provided by anti-feminists) but that’s no reason not to promote awareness of domestic violence encountered by men. It may not be as wide-spread a problem but it’s still a problem. All the feminists I know, myself included, are in favour of spreading information and providing help to battered men, as well as stripping the negative stigma of being a male victim. I really don’t know any feminists who would oppose that, except the strawman feminists that always come up in these discussions.

                  And no, I really cannot be held accountable for everything anyone calling themselves a feminist has ever said.

                  (From what I’ve heard of the UK minister for women, feminists haven’t been pleased with her at all. British feminists on twitter have been saying she’s doing more harm than good. But I haven’t had the time to look into it, what with being so outraged about Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Todd Akin and the like.)

                  • fbombsucks says:

                    Feminists have and are an entity that distort statistics. But you seem to be of ‘sticking my fingers in my ears’ and pretending it doesn’t happen kind.

                    As far as police are concerned – Do you think they don’t stand something to gain from the abuse industry particularly domestic violence? The worse this crime is and the easier it is to point the finger at a criminal (men), the more funding and jobs are created. Hence why feminists lobby for automatic arrests to be made in domestic violence call outs. Guess who they arrest regardless of the apparent violence. So yes it is interesting what police say in regards to domestic violence.

                    Regardless of weather Harman is doing good or not currently, she has been hoisted to her role by other feminists. This is where accountability comes in. The feminists who supported her, voted for her etc, regardless of weather they like her now, are responsible for where she is and what she is doing.

                    As for your triage nurse situation. You just contradicted your own thoughts. Men are far less likely to go to hospital for treatment of severe injuries than women regardless of the source. But this isn’t about who came off worse, this is about who initiates violence.
                    Once you lash out at someone in a physically violent manner, you loose all moral standing, weather or not you come off second best. If you do initiate violence and come off second best, you are not a victim. Its no different to going and picking a fight with anyone bigger or stronger.

                    The report I referred to is a report on many surveys. I will say it again. There are literally hundreds of these surveys. They all bring about the same conclusion – men and women initiate and participate in domestic violence at or very near equal rates. But you simply refuse to believe it because it goes against what you want to believe.

                    I have NEVER heard a feminists speak out about domestic violence on men. Most will say it does happen but its such a small issue and its hardly worth chasing. I haven’t actually seen an antifeminist ‘fact’ that wasn’t a lie. I don’t doubt that they exist. But they are surely in far smaller numbers than feminisms own misinformation. And more importantly anti feminists are using theirs to change legislations.

                    You can and should be held accountable if you are not actively participating to silence those that spread lies in order to fulfill their agenda.

                    • Well, I don’t think we’re going to reach an agreement here. You think I’m sticking fingers in my ears, I think you’re a conspiracy theorist.

                      Anyway, I didn’t contradict myself. I know men don’t seek medical help as often as women. Maybe I expressed myself poorly but I was trying to say that when someone gets severely beaten up, so badly that they have to go to the ER, then that’s where they’ll show up. And the severely beaten women are usually victims of domestic violence. The severely beaten men seldom are victims of domestic violence. Men get their butts kicked in bar brawls.

                      Come on… the police support false feminist claims about domestic violence to secure their jobs? Uh-huh…

                      As for accountability, you’re wrong. First of all, I’m not British and I never supported Harmon. Secondly, just because I’m a feminist, it doesn’t mean I support all the same things other feminists support. We’re a heterogenous bunch with different opinions. For example, some feminists are atheists, some believe in god. Some are pro-choice, some are “pro-life.” Some voted for Harriet Harmon, some didn’t. You can’t lump all feminists together.

                      Could the reason for you never hearing feminists speak about male domestic violence victims be that you don’t listen to feminists? You’re certainly not listening to me. I’ve repeatedly expressed my concern and empathy for male victims but you still insist feminists don’t care about men. (So you’re the one sticking fingers in your ears.)

                      And could it be that when you talk to feminists, instead of trying to find out what they’re really on about, you piss them off by blaming them of all kinds of bizarre things? How about, instead of fighting against your strawmen feminists, you could follow some actual feminists on twitter to get an idea of what feminists are really like. I’d suggest people like: @schemaly, @dheeere, @CratesNRibbons, @Badassperger, @amirightfolks, @maehemsez, @NadiaKamil, @gammygreer, @Feministe, @MissMillicent, @LinaArvid, @shava12000, @98Apples, @helenmew, @Lcliffo88, @EverydaySexism, @DawnHFoster, @AbiWilks.

                      Instead of going up to a feminist and telling them what you think feminism is, you could let feminists tell you what they think femism is. Because that’s what feminism is.

                      Or… you can keep ignoring what feminists are really saying, and continue fighting against strawmen. But please do it somewhere else. You’ve accomplished everything you can accomplish here.

      • sickoffeministbs says:

        Are you serious? Do you even know what patriarchy is? Oh hang on, you’re a feminist, of course you have no idea what a patriarchy is (anymore than you know what oppression is).
        In a historical patriarchy men own almost everything and women have almost no legal rights whatsoever, often with a similar legal status as children. Even the more sanitized definitions from a modern dictionary indicate that ‘patriarchy’ is long dead. According to the Oxford Dictionary a patriarchy is: a form of social organisation is which the father or eldest male is the head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line. A second, even more sanitized definition still doesn’t match: a system of society or government ruled by men. With women having the same legal rights as men since 1966 (and gaining numerous rights than men don’t have) and being in almost every part of society and politics to claim the Western world is a patriarchy indicates either ignorance or delusion.

        • Okay, despite your aggressive tone, I’m going to try to explain to you what feminists mean by patriarchy. The dictionary definitions aren’t really relevant here. Are all your experiences in life based on dictionaries? You’ve never experienced anything that the dictionary definition fails to describe perfectly?

          Just because patriarchy rarely manifests in its dictionary form in the Western world, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s milder, it’s less clear cut, but it exists. Women have gained rights since the days of dictionary version of patriarchy, but we still don’t have equal rights or equal representation in governments or corporations. Even though patriarchy is slowly losing its grip, many people’s (women’s as well as men’s) thoughts are still governed by patriarchic notions about what constitutes being a man or a woman.

          That’s what we mean when we talk about patriarchy. Dictionary descriptions are meant to give you a general idea about the meaning of a given word. They aren’t meant to be exhaustive.

  7. Pingback: Girl Uninterrupted « fbombslies

  8. Dave says:

    Women have made advances in society mainly because of governmental social engineering and birth control.
    Soon, (if feminists don’t stop it) men will have equal leverage over their own reproductive systems that women do and the playing field will be leveled in many ways.
    When this happens, men will be in charge of determining when and how families will be created. That’s when we’ll get to see just how far imposed social engineering can reverse gender roles.

    • Um… okay. But where I come from, couples already decide together whether or not to have children. The responsibility of bringing up kids is so huge that if there’s no mutual agreement, it doesn’t bode well for the family. If both the man and the woman are using birth control, the chance of accidental pregnancies decreases, and surely that’s a good thing? The way I see it, it makes the “playing field” more equal for everone. Women will no longer have to bear the brunt of hormonal and/or surgical birth control, and men will no longer have to worry about getting duped into fatherhood when they can control their own reproductive system.

      Also, the smaller risk of accidental pregnancies is a good thing for women. No one wants to get accidentally pregnant.

      • Dave says:

        It isn’t responsible married couples who will be hurt by this. It’s the feminists. Feminists want women to be solely in charge of reproduction because it’s more or less the only way women can really lead fully independent lives while having the option of having a family when they want to. If men all over the world were to start taking advantage of a reliable and reversible form of birth control it would narrow women’s family planning options a considerably and put a lot of power back into the hands of men. I advocate it because the lack of two parent homes in this country is contributing to the country’s moral implosion, higher crime rates, and more irresponsible people on welfare expecting handouts.

        • Dave says:

          I want to add that I endorse equality between the sexes where and when it’s possible. I advocate these new contraceptives because it’s become a dangerous assumption that women have to determine the futures of families. We don’t need a country dominated by feminists any more so than it should be dominated by a patriarchy.

          • Well, as it happens, I support equality as well. It’s just that the way I see it, it’s a bit unfair that up until now, women have been solely responsible with taking hormones that fuck up their system, having painful medical procedures to have contraceptive devices installed etc. I’m really looking forward to a time when men can share some of that responsibility.

            Besides, even though it’s a marginal phenomenon, some men do get duped into fatherhood. If a woman is so inclined, it’s fairly easy for her to claim she’s on the pill even when she’s not. If men had birth control available to them, they’d be able to make sure they don’t become fathers against their will. I don’t see anything wrong with that. If women have the power to not become mothers against their will, men should have that same power. It’s only fair. And it’s not a threat to feminism.

        • You say “Feminists want women to be solely in charge of reproduction because…” but you know, I’ve never met a feminist who wants that, and I know a lot of them. So your argument is a strawman. Besides, giving men the control of their reproductive system doesn’t take away women’s control over their own. Even when men have safe and efficient contraception available to them, women will still have it, too.

          I’m a feminist and I support male birth control because it will make birth control more equal for everyone. I have never seen a feminist disagree with me on this. So please don’t tell me what feminists think about this. I think I’m the one with the first hand knowledge here.

          • Dave says:

            As if I’ve never known any feminists and discussed this with them?
            Here is a link to a very important and telling video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JymN5yu-K_o
            Take a look at this. I have first hand knowledge about feminism too. I was raised with them.

            • You do realise Dr Coutinho is talking about an incident that happened decades ago? He mentions meeting Nicolae Ceaușescu in that conference. Coutinho says it was “about ten years ago” but seeing as Ceaușescu died in 1989, it must have happened at least 23 years ago. And what exactly happened decades ago? One hot head in the audience, Betty Friedan, got the women chanting with her, and you assume that determines how feminists today think about male birth control? Please. You can see from the other women’s incredulous faces on that video that they’re having a hard time believing what Coutinho is telling about the incident.

              Also, it’s noteworthy that this video doesn’t show a feminist talking about her negative attitude to male birth control. It shows a man telling us that he thinks his project failed because of feminists. He goes on and on about how his pills had no side effects but FDA didn’t accept his pills because of feminists… but come on, how convincing is that? What birth control pill doesn’t have side effects? The ones intended for women have loads of negative side effects, and they’ve been developed for decades now. I’m pretty sure the FDA had a reason to block those pills, and it wasn’t feminists’ objection.

              You may have discussed this with feminists but they’re very different feminists from the ones I know. It’s not a common policy of feminists to oppose male birth control. I certainly didn’t get that memo… but I have seen many positive comments on the RISUG. Here are a few:

              http://thehairpin.com/2012/04/the-agonizing-ecstasies-of-male-contraception
              http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/2012/08/19/male-birth-control-pill-or-fairy-tale-pill/
              http://zeldalily.com/index.php/2011/06/why-is-there-still-no-male-contraceptive-pill/
              http://matingmarket.wordpress.com/2011/10/19/feminism-and-the-male-birth-control-pill/

              I also found a lot talk about feminists’ opposition to male contraception, but the funny thing is, it was anti-feminist men doing the talking. Feminist had no part in it.

              • Dave says:

                Feminists don’t talk about new innovations in male birth control because they don’t want to draw attention to it. They’ll advocate female birth control and abortion all day. Not male birth control. So much for equality. Lot’s of new and very promising types of male birth control will be available soon and it doesn’t seem that they will have any side effects at all. A good deal of liberal media focus on the issue frames the argument from a feminist perspective and asks whether or not men can be trusted to take a pill; a very sexist and hypocritical leftist media attempt at shunning the notion that men should have any hand in reproductive control

                • Dave says:

                  Additionally, our courts are very slanted in favor of women when it comes to families. Women are able to trap men into paying for children who aren’t even their own and can be falsely accused of rape and harassment at the drop of a dime. It’s become ridiculous. Feminists try to ban DNA testing to keep all of this working in their favor in the name of expanding a welfare state. Our schools and universities are also going out of their way to advance women at the expense of men and have created a new generation of underemployed and disenfranchised men in the name of feminism. Look up the laws and statistics that back up this argument. It’s a legitimate argument and new advances in male birth control could help mitigate some of it. I think it’s naive to believe that feminists would want men to be in control of when they have families. I hope I haven’t been too offensive here, but I see an increasingly hostile environment against men here that should be addressed a bit better than it has been. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

                  • Feminists trying to ban DNA testing? Where is this happening? Finnish feminists are in favour of DNA testing when there’s any confusion about the child’s father. That way we can end the myths of evil plotting women who trap men into paying child support to other men’s kids. Also, in Finland feminists have been vocal about stopping courts from favouring women in custody battles. Traditionally, it’s easier for the mother to get the child’s custody in divorce but feminists don’t think that’s a good thing. Sometimes the father is the better care-taker, and the child’s best interest should trump the patriarchal notion of the mother as the primary parent.

                    What do you think schools and universities are doing, exactly, to prevent boys and men from learning? That is major paranoia. Education hasn’t changed THAT much from the days when only men could get into universities. Teaching and studying methods have changed some, especially for the younger students, but the changes have been to better to accommodate the needs of children. Schools are now making special efforts to help kids with all sorts of learning disabilities and short attention spans. That benefits boys as much as (if not more than) girls.

                    Look, feminists want men and women to be equally in control of when they have families. It’s not hard.

                    You haven’t been offensive as such. Just passive aggressive, refusing to believe anything I tell you. When I refute one of your claims, you just come up with another one. Some of your claims have been valid concerns but mostly you’re just telling me what I’m thinking, and then when I tell you what I’m actually thinking, you don’t believe me or you say I’m naive and don’t know what feminists are REALLY thinking. If you were here to interview a feminist, as a curiosity, that would be one thing. But you’re here to tell me what feminism is (according to you).
                    This environment isn’t hostile to men. Far from it. If it wasn’t for the wonderful men who introduced me to the necessity of feminism in the first place, I wouldn’t even be writing this blog. But you’re making this a hostile place to yourself because honestly, it feels like you’re just here to pick a fight. Do correct me if I’m wrong.

                    • Dave says:

                      Not here to pick a fight. I’m here because I actually do see a media that goes out of it’s way to make men seem inept and incompetent; in TV, and online. I don’t see it as a coincidence that the number of women going on to college today far outnumbers men since women have dominated education for the past several decades now. Liberal Arts departments at Universities encourage women to view the world through the lens of feminist idealism and women’s studies vilify men altogether allowing women to believe that they are the arbiters of all things equality related by using the past to justify present and future actions. Anywhere you look, mainstream media goes out of it’s way to focus on women’s and girl’s issues over boys. There’s no escaping these things because they’re all over; everywhere.
                      I’m not blind to the fact that equality where and when it’s possible is important. But I can clearly see an antagonism towards men being encouraged by influential feminism. And I can see an incredible number of children being born out of wedlock and being raised by single mothers who have come to rely on the government for their support; (one of the reasons Obama just got re-elected) Feminism and Marxism for better or for worse are married to each other at the tax payers expense right now and that has to be reversed if this country is going to survive. I blame a lot of these problems on ideals that work in principal but not in reality, and many of them come in the name of feminism and I think
                      we’re suffering for it.

                    • I’m glad you’re not here to pick a fight. But it’s getting late so I’ll get back to you on this tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you don’t mind, could you elaborate how you think media makes men seem inept and incompetent? You mean sitcoms? To be fair, don’t you think the media represents women pretty abominably as well?

                      Also, I just have to say that your idea of “women’s studies” is from the 70s, when radical feminism was still in. Now it’s called “gender studies” and it’s not about vilifying men.

                • No Dave, that’s where you’re wrong. And again, you’re telling a feminist why feminists are doing something. I think I know better, being a feminist myself and knowing a lot of other feminists. The reasons I don’t spend all my time talking about male birth control are:
                  1) I’ve already talked about it. I’ve talked about it with my friends, you know, in real life, and we were all very thrilled about it. We decided to wait and see what happens, all happily anticipating a breakthrough in male birth control. But science is slow. There haven’t been any new developments in RISUG so there hasn’t been anything new to say since I last talked about it, and posted about it here on my journal. So that’s number 1 reason why I don’t talk about it all the time.
                  2) It’s not personally of that much importance to me. My husband and I have already got our birth control figured out. We haven’t had any accidental pregnancies so I feel pretty safe with the methods we’re using. If he wants to double our protection, that’s fine, but it’s not something that keeps me up at night.
                  3) The third reason many feminists don’t talk about men’s birth control is that quite a few haven’t even heard about it. Many people have heard it from me for the first time. But they haven’t been all “omg, we need to hush this up!” The women’s reaction has been more along lines of “omg, we have to shout this from the rooftops!”

                  And you know, we really don’t need to “advocate” female birth control. It already exists. Besides, many women hate hormonal birth control and painful intra uterinal devices, so they’d be more than happy to let their partners take the brunt of contraception. I know many feminist women and I’ve seen them reacting to the news of RISUG on online forums. You have your own theories about feminists’ opinions but you might want to consider that I have the first hand knowledge? Sure, there probably are some crackpot feminists who are opposed to male birth control, but don’t think they represent the majority!

                  I’ve seen the question of whether or not men can be trusted to take the pill. It seems like a silly question but I saw one good argument for bringing that question up. If a woman forgets about birth control and gets pregnant, she suffers the consequences. She has to bodily endure either the abortion or the nine-month pregnancy and the actual childbirth. If forgetting to take the pill was her mistake, then she has herself to blame. But if it taking the pill was up to the man and he forgot, imagine how pissed off she would be! It might ruin relationships!

                  But that still doesn’t make male birth control a bad thing because if a woman is worried about the man remembering to take the pill, all she has to do is to keep using birth control herself, too. Problem solved! Besides, with RISUG, forgetting is not an issue. It’s just pure awesome!

                  Just for your information, I’m very leftist. Equality is sort of a big thing in leftist ideology. Anything that increases equality is just fantastic by leftist standards, and male birth control definitely falls into that category. Want me to give you a list of leftist tweeters who think male birth control is super duper?

                  • Dave says:

                    Before I go any further, I’m sorry if I’ve spoken in a hostile tone. I have incredible women in my life both personally and professionally who I care about. I endorse feminism but not some radical strains of it that seem to be getting more and more influential in our society. So, my sincere apology if you’ve found me to be hostile. I would also defend a woman’s right to chose under any circumstances and I wouldn’t be the man I’ve become without some of the great women I’ve known in my life. We should all be in this thing together.
                    That said, I fully believe that birth control has underpinned feminism to a huge extent. Some of it has had good effects for both men and women, and some of it has had terrible effects for society at large.
                    In my own personal opinion we can see it’s effects all over the place. There seems to be consensus coming out of the left that suggests that men are responsible for every bad thing on earth, thus justifying anything radical feminists preach; some of which is hateful and no better than the sexism we’ve seen from men.
                    I’m pretty sure that new and more effective methods of male birth control would help stem the tide of what has most certainly become an anti male society. Men are under attack. I won’t get into media, Universities, and corporations who openly discriminate against men, you can see it everywhere.
                    I will however say that birth control is vitally important for the goals of serious feminists who from all I can see are only interested in advancing the causes of women and don’t care about many of the terrible consequences they’re creating in society.
                    Leveling the playing field for contraception would have a profound impact on many of the anti male trends now happening in the western world. Perhaps my impression of radical feminists is bad but I see them as no better than “radical” anything else; always a danger and a potential threat to society.
                    Men and women need to be responsible for the welfare and advancement of society, and I think that a little more attention needs to be paid to male causes by feminists. We work better by understanding and acknowledging our respective strengths
                    not by forcing unreasonable expectations and demands in the name of so called “social justice”
                    I hope that you’re right when you say that feminists aren’t against new male contraceptives because they’re needed as badly today as when the pill came out for women.

                    • Well, that’s the thing! I don’t recognise those radical feminists you speak of. I’ve never met one. If I saw someone talking about how women need to have control over men by means of contraception (or whatever), I would label him/her a nutcase, not a feminist. So it pisses me off when people define feminism by those nutjobs who don’t even understand what feminism is.

                      Because yeah, there are women who hate men, and they disguise their hatred in feminism. They may even genuinely think that’s what feminism is about. But they are a minority of crazy people and they don’t define feminism. There are crazy people in all walks of life and they claim to represent all sorts of ideologies, but we don’t define the ideologies by the crazies who put their own spin on the ideas.

                      You and I seem to live in very different worlds. I don’t see that men are under attack or being kept back from the media. The way I see it, it’s definitely a man’s world. The majority of politicians are male. The leaders of major corporations are male. Most of the university professors are male.
                      When TV news and talk shows interview experts in whatever area, the expert is usually a man, even though there are just as knowledgeable and competent women working in the same field. Some women have broken through the glass roof into politics and economics, and women are gaining visibility in the media but that’s not a threat to men. That’s equality.

                      Or, well, it’s the start of equality. There’s still a long way to go until people’s attitudes change so that female politicians are seen first and foremost as politicians instead of as wanna be-politicians whose clothes, shoes, make-up, hair and weight get as much scrutiny as their work in politics.

                      I fail to see the negative effects of feminism in the society. I think it’s great that women are able to inherit, own, buy and sell property, work outside of home, get an education, have sex without the constant fear of pregnancy, wear what they want, find their own spouses instead of being told who to marry, travel without the permission of a man and indeed, walk about town without being escorted by a male relative.

                      It’s also great that when I’m in all-male company, the men will listen to my views like I was another person, instead of patronising me and assuming that there’s something wrong with my intelligence because I’m a woman. That kind of respect was not self-evident in Finland 30 years ago, and my American friends tell me it’s still not self-evident in the USA today, especially among older men.

                      So I think people with feminist ideas have accomplished much good but the work still isn’t done. I really don’t see that anything bad has come out of it. In my experience, the only people who see feminism as harmful have either misunderstood what feminism is, or are purposefully spreading anti-feminist propaganda for their own political and/or religious purposes. Some conservatives have beliefs about the woman’s place in the world, and feminism doesn’t go down well at all with those folks, so they seek to demonise it, and blame feminism of all sorts of weird things like we’ve seen above – male genocide, the ruin of education, increased crime rates, obstructing DNA testing and destroying families.

  9. fbombsucks says:

    I’ve spent ten years listening to ‘what feminism is’ from the mouths of feminists. I’ve yet to see there talk=actions. I have also spent ten years trying to understand feminism. But feminism isn’t all glossy and helpful. It has potential to. But doesn’t.

    Regarding the police: firstly typical feminist response – dismissive and unable to support any argument with substance. If you don’t believe police benefit from DV, then why is it that now everyday, petty human responses and interaction is now a crime. Saying police don’t benefit from crime is like saying a farmers crops won’t benefit from rain. Every time police make an arrest it goes onto statistics. if they can inflate those statistics then next year they get more funding by having a case to argue to governments about crime.

    I agree with you that women come off second best with regards to domestic violence. That does not make them innocent. If yo pick a fight with someone who is bigger than you, like I said before you loose all moral standing, you lashed out first. The problem here is that feminism blames men for domestic violence rather than to target the source of this violence which every study seems to pick up – children who grow up in violent homes later perpetuate this violence. But supporting that wouldn’t support feminist doctrine that men control women through power and violence.

    I’ve listen to you when you state that violence against men is wrong. But thats not what i’m discussing here. I’m discussing that feminism lies about these things and you won’t have it. Hitler did it to a nation and they followed. Tell a lie enough and eventually people will believe it.

    You may think I’m a conspiracy theorist but I think you are ignorant to what feminism has done to society over the past 40 years. You are ignorant to the stupid laws, the increase in crime and the source of this crime, the increase of taxes necessary under the ‘nanny’ state that feminism wants, ignorant to the slowly dwindling education system. When you do look at them you blame them away on some other unknown power and that you are in no way able to help or are responsible. And then they get lumped into a category of ‘bazaar’ and you wonder why the world hates feminism. But it seems you are a lost cause to reason with. . Peace out.

    • Of course the police “benefit” from crime. If there was no crime, we wouldn’t need the police. However, I don’t think police make up crimes, as you suggest. That’s conspiracy theory stuff. The reason those “petty human responses” are deemed crimes is that they’re violent, and in a civilised society, a person has the right to be protected from violence. The way to protect people from violence is punishing those who behave violently.

      I’m not sure where you come from, but where I come from, police funds are cut back every year. That’s a big issue in Finland and it’s getting a lot of media attention. When the police talk of their need for more funds, they don’t talk about domestic violence. They talk about drunk drivers and dangerous speeding, robberies, drug dealers and organised crime. They’re not saying, “We need more money because of all the women who are beaten by their spouses.” So there goes your argument about the police making a profit from domestic violence.

      You say you lose all moral standing when you pick up a fight. Fair enough. But what about the women who don’t lash out first? Shouldn’t we be focusing on helping the victims who don’t do anything to provoke a violent reaction instead of trying to demonstrate that some women “got what was coming to them?” And furthermore, shouldn’t we be making the society less violent instead of defending the right to strike back? If a woman hits a man, shouldn’t the man walk out of the situation (and possibly the whole relationship) instead of hitting back? When did it become acceptable for the stronger to hit the weaker? I’m not saying it’s acceptable for the weaker to hit the stronger but most people have enough common sense not to hit stronger people anyway.

      Whaaaat?! You’re blaming increasing crime and dwindling education on feminists?! Well, numbers of crimes may have increased but when you put that in proportion to the growing population, crime has been on the decrease in the Western world for the past century or so. And I hate to burst your bubble on feminists’ relationship with dwindling education but Finland has one of the world’s best education systems and we’re also one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to gender equality. It seems you’re not very knowledable about feminism and its effects after all. Gender equality is not the only factor in our educational success, but equality in all things is a fundamental principle the system. Equality regardless of social background, ethnicity and gender is important and that philosophy has put our schools to the top of the PISA ranking.

      You say you’ve spent time listening to feminists and witnessing their lack of action. But that claim is not very convincing when you don’t seem to know what opinions feminists have. Instead, you come up with the nonsense opinions anti-feminists claim feminists to have, and absurd claims of feminists increasing crime and destroying education. So I urge you again, instead of buying the anti-feminist propaganda that only aims to discredit and demonise feminism, get to know what real feminists really think.

      The world doesn’t hate feminism! Most people I know, men and women, are feminists. And many more share all the feminist ideas and principles without wanting to call themselves feminists, and that’s because the relentless propaganda against feminism has given it a bad name. I’m surprised at how vocal and how out of touch with reality the anti-feminists are, but trust me, they are a minority.

      • fbombsucks says:

        “The reason those “petty human responses” are deemed crimes is that they’re violent,”
        I understand that you are from Finland and current laws there will vary however in the UK and Australia apparently ignoring your partner is Violent. Kicking the family dog isn’t only an animal cruelty issue anymore – its now violence against your partner. Name calling is now violence. Withholding sex by law is now an act of violence. These are the things you are defending here. These are stupid laws created by feminists. And why would one make such stupid laws then? IT PROPS UP THE ABUSE INDUSTRY BY CREATING MORE STATISTICS.

        “Shouldn’t we be focusing on helping the victims who don’t do anything to provoke a violent reaction instead of trying to demonstrate that some women “got what was coming to them?””

        Yes and no. We focus far to much on the victim rather than the source of the problem. Feminists blame ‘the patriachy’ – BUT THATS NOT FIXING THE ISSUE. The issue lies in perpetuation of violence learn’t from child hood. We need to break the cycle for these people.
        Its not anti feminist to suggest that women are 50% of the problem in domestic violence. Thats reality. It is anti feminist to rebuke the lies of feminists which tell us that men typically the aggressors and therefore all fault lies with men, and that when women lash out it is only ever in self defence. But you won’t listen to that part becuase you support those lies.

        “Whaaaat?! You’re blaming increasing crime and dwindling education on feminists?! Well, numbers of crimes may have increased but when you put that in proportion to the growing population, crime has been on the decrease in the Western world for the past century or so. And I hate to burst your bubble on feminists’ relationship with dwindling education but Finland has one of the world’s best education systems and we’re also one of the most progressive countries in the world when it comes to gender equality. ”

        Ever heard of fatherlessness. Ever done any research into its links to juvenial delinquency. Want to know who the people are who argue that not only are fathers not needed in a family but think they are also disruptive to family life – FEMINISTS. Want to know who lobbied for all the stupid family laws that deny fathers the right to see their children. Want to know who push for the view that a man alone with a child must be a peadophile/child abuser – FEMINISTS.
        US statistics shows that crime per 100000 people sharply increased between 1960 and 1990. IT has slowly fallen since but definetly not back to anything like pre 1960 stats.

        Yes more women are now educated than before – GOOD. But the quality of education has fallen.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9344505/Teenagers-worse-at-maths-than-in-1970s-figures-show.html
        I know first hand how bad the feminization of the education system has gotten. I was accused and diagnosed with a learning disability (ADD) for originally simply challenging a teacher the relevance of sylibis in a class. Instead of getting an explanation I was accused of being disruptive. I am not unique in this treatment. Rather I am part of an increasling normal progression of boys education. Medication prescribed to me caused me to behave in unreasonable manner (short temper, hyper activity, increase in nervousnous). This only helped seal the justification of my feminist school teachers. It wasn’t till I reached high school I had a physics teacher who actually enjoyed my ‘disruptive behaviour’ that I started to realise that there was nothing wrong with me. I had similar experiences in university

        “So I urge you again, instead of buying the anti-feminist propaganda that only aims to discredit and demonise feminism, get to know what real feminists really think.”

        [Edited by moderator to remove abuse.] I said earlier that I spent 10 years listening to feminists. Thats how I came to hate feminism. I spent 10 years listening to what feminists really think.
        I didn’t buy propaganda. I made an opinion based on my experiences. I made an opinion based on being told (to my face, by feminists) I need to suppress my urge beat and rape women. I made an opinion based on being pushed to the side for questioning my teachers at school rather than being given an explanation. I made an opinion based on ridiculous legistlations being set in place around me. I made an opinion when I realised I was being lied to. I made an opinion when I had to train young women in my industry who where there not because they earn’t the oportunity but to fill a quota. I made an opinion when my teams results slipped because we had to hire the best woman not the best person.

        You can blame individual feminists all you want but they got their ideas and their methods from feminist ideology. I’m done arguing with you. You clearly don’t walk out the front door and see what is actually going on in the world.

        • You know that calling me names makes it very hard for me to take seriously anything else you might have to say? It seems that you’re really angry and you’re just blaming all the problems in life on feminists. It doesn’t sound very reasonable. I’ll get back to the issues you’ve raised when I have more time but I’m going to ask you to stop calling me names and telling me I’m ignorant if you want me to publish your comments. I’m not ignorant, I assure you. We just have different ways of looking at things, that’s all.

  10. stream angel says:

    I notice several anti-feminists coming out with the old chestnuts – “I have never heard a feminist say….” or “Feminists don’t denounce…..”.
    The problem with these statements is – How would they KNOW what feminists are or are not saying or denouncing ? Where do they expect to find these “denouncements” & “sayings” ? Given that these men don’t associate with feminists, every feminist in the land could have “F **k Andrea Dworkin” tattooed on their forehead & these men wouldn’t know.
    Lots of feminists DO speak out about, & “denounce” the things that these anti-feminists have such a bugbear about, but its not newsworthy, so we’re hardly going to hear about it on the News – “Today in London, 200 feminists had conversations in which they said that they were totally opposed to man-hating”
    Also, in many cases, there’s no internet forum sites in which you can raise your opposition, unless you resort to the anti-feminist’s tactic of turning up on an site unrelated to the topic, & trying to change the subject (which is downright rude)
    Or alternatively, you could go to a site that was opened by an anti-feminist (let’s call one – hypothetically – “Stop Hating Men”) & add a comment like “I’m a feminist, & I agree”, at which point somebody will inevitably reply along the lines of “You’re a liar. You’re all pig lesbian witch whores. What have you got to say about…..blah blah blah. You support an ideology that…..blah blah blah. Unless you do what I say you’re a blah blah blah. You shouldn’t call yourself a feminist because…..blah blah blah”
    There’s also an assumption that feminists should “denounce” things “as a group” as if feminism is a card-carrying organisation that has annual general meetings where policy is handed down by our “leaders” & us- the rank & file have to obey.
    I often say to detractors of feminism – “If you want to know what feminists really think, go & speak to some real feminists” but I’m getting wary of saying this, because I actually don’t like the idea of feminists getting the haranguing that these people are prone to give.

    • Thank you, excellent points! The difficulty of “denouncing” certain things is well demonstrated in my discussion about male birth control with Dave above. I said “all the feminists I know are thrilled about it because it would bring equality to birth control.” But that doesn’t even register with Dave who still claims feminists are against it. This is not the first time it has happened. Anti-feminists have such fixed ideas about what feminists think that they won’t believe any different even when they hear it straight from the horse’s mouth. So trying to have a discussion seems pretty pointless. But even so, having them haranguing feminists is better than them not having any contacts with feminists at all. Because if they come across feminists once in a while, there’s a slight chance they might hear something we say.

      But it’s frustrating. The first comments to this entry are two feminists (me and Missus_Tribble) discussing how wrong male circumcision is, and how boys should have the power to decide what happens to their bodies. But that doesn’t sway the anti-feminists’ belief that feminists don’t care about men’s issues.

      And as you pointed out, anti-feminists don’t even get to hear about it when feminists defend men because they’re not listening to what we’re saying. A few weeks ago on twitter I defended men’s right to speak up in feminist discussions. Another feminist was reproaching a man for offering his opinion, saying that men shouldn’t offer opinions unless they’re asked to do so. I disagreed and said that everyone has the right to express their opinion. Where were the anti-feminists then? Not within a hearing distance, that’s for sure!

  11. Saw your tweet, so have popped over for solidarity. Wow, some of these comments are so ignorant, I’m not even sure what to say. For instance, Dave seems to think we live in a world where women have all the control over reproduction, forcing unsuspecting men to have children whenever they choose. He’s also entirely wrong about the feminist stance on male (hormonal) birth control. And what’s fbombsucks even on about?! So bizarre. =/

    • Many of these comments come from anti-feminists so it’s not surprising they seek to discredit everything I say. But what really amazes me… are they actually serious with their claims of feminist plots for male genocide and conspiracies that somehow distort all the crime statistics, obstructing DNA tests… and all that? If they are serious, they must live in a very frightening world.

      Hey, I fight against patriarchy! But I’m not paranoid enough to imagine there are evil patriarchs who are trying to make women extinct and poison the tap water because it somehow suits their patriarchic agenda!

      • fbombsucks says:

        I don’t believe feminists are on some gender genocide campaign. Feminism does distort statistics. You won’t believe that part though. I’m not against all parts of feminism. In the UK a father (or not studys show that possible as much as 12% of children are being raised by men who they believe are their biolgocal fathers who in fact are not) cannot get DNA paternity testing unless the mother agrees to it. Even in cases where men have probed via DNA evidence that children are not theirs, men have been forced by law to continue to pay child support. This isn’t made up stuff – this goes on, weather you choose to believe it or not. This is where anti feminsts come from.

        • I think I’ve got you now! You don’t believe feminists are on a gender genocide campaign? But how can that be? A fellow anti-feminist said it, and you support the same ideology, so you can be held accountable for supporting that view. Am I right or am I right? Because you hold me accountable for anything and everything other feminists have ever said or done. You still think that’s reasonable?

          I believe I just proved my point. SOME feminists may support idiotic laws but there are other feminists fighting those same idiotic laws. So how about, instead of blaming feminists for all the idiotic laws, blame the people who concocted them?

          • fbombsucks says:

            WOW you are really reaching aren’t you.
            This is what it comes down to for you doesn’t it.
            Unfortunatley I for you I hold you accountable for the ideologic collective that is feminsm for those stupid laws. As someone against feminism I don’t want to change any laws. I just want feminism as it currently stands to go away. I hold you accountable on the fact that feminism is ruining society.

            I do hold myself accountable for actions of my fellow man. I am part of society.
            Unlike you I didn’t invent a system – the patriachy – to blame it all on. Instead I like to investigate the root cause of problems.

            IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

            There are no known feminists fighting ilogically and damaging family law (laws that are not just bad for men but terrible for children), there are no known feminist fighting illogical domestic violence laws, there are no known feminists looking at the root causes of juvenial deliquency, there are no known feminists acknowleging that some men get paid more than some women becuase they work more dangerous jobs and therefore its actually pay equality.

            Feminism did concoct these stupid laws. Hareit Harmon. Politician and a feminist. Tried to pass a legislation so that women could get away with murdering their husbands. NOW a feminist womens organisation frequently supports and lobbies for mothers facing sentencing in the US who have killed their own children. Mentally ill or not these people are not fit for society.

            Ideal equality doesn’t exist. Men and women are biologically different. There is a very good article that describes this and whilst quite short and simple it is too long for me to explain here as it would be pointless, as it will be lost on you.

            • Okay, my attempt to point out (in a light-hearted way) how illogical it is to hold person A responsible for something person B has said, even if the two disagree on it, obviously didn’t go down well with you. It’s still illogical, though.

              • fbombsucks says:

                This isn’t about person A or B. Rather person A or B being in support of an organization. Yes feminism itself isn’t an organized entity with a formal structure. However feminists have started, organise and run many organizations and offices in government and soceity which have feminist agendas. With out person A or B these organized institutions would not exist, and therefore would not be spreading lies. So, no my argument isn’t illogical.

                But you do show by how little of a thread any credibility feminism has when such medicore points become the basis for defending yourself as feminist.

                • But your argument is illogical. Think of the Irish people and their abortion laws. Or let’s narrow it down even further: Irish Catholics and their abortion laws. Now that someone has died because of those laws, it would be tempting to blame all Catholics for that death. But the thing is, there are Catholics who do not support the insane laws, and who want those laws changed. It would be absurd to blame all Catholics for the actions of some Catholics.

                  I may not agree with Catholicism but I understand that Catholics are people (just like me). They share a religion that differs from my worldview, but they don’t share all the same views among themselves, even if they are all Catholics. I wouldn’t go on a crusade against all Catholics, calling them evil and trying to make them denounce their religion because of their inhuman abortion laws. Not only would it be illogical and unfair, but I also know I wouldn’t achieve anything with that kind of behaviour, so instead, I speak against those laws, and many Catholics actually agree with me, so we’re getting somewhere towards solving the problem – changing those life threatening abortion laws.

                  Of course, I could say that if there had been no Catholics in the first place, there wouldn’t be dangerous abortion laws and no one would have died because of having been denied a medical operation on religious grounds. But what would be the point of me saying that? Where’s the use? The only thing that would achieve would be to make Catholics angry because I would be blaming them all for something many of them had no part in, and I would also be reducing Catholicism to its problems, and ignoring the good things that come out of Catholicism. You see what I’m trying to say here? Instead of fighting Catholicism, fight its problems?

                  The same way, I’m not resposible for everything and anything another feminist has ever said or done, especially if I disagree with said feminist. That’s why there’s no need for me to “defend myself as a feminist” and I’m not going to denounce feminism because some feminists sometimes say or do things I don’t agree with.

                  Now do you see what I mean? Not only is it illogical to blame the whole group for the actions of individual members of the group, but it’s also counter-productive to your own purposes.

                  I’ll get back to your concerns about the negative effects of feminism when I have more time.

                  • fbombsucks says:

                    Lets suppose that for a moment that feminism largely is ‘good’ even though feminism is based on lies and actually achieves very little in the way of good.
                    I still don’t see you or any other feminists pushing for a reform or to silence those feminists who are notably doing wrong by society. This isn’t about blame. Its about doing whats right.
                    When Julia Gillard went on her famous rant about misogny all the feminists clapped and cheered. Never mind she was having her rant and defending a misogynist in doing so. When VAWA, NOW and all those other famous feminist orginizations spread lies about domestic violence, not one single feminst steps forward and says ‘no this is wrong.’
                    When a man commits suicide in front of a family court by burning himself in protest over the terrible state of family law, not a single feminist steps forward and says ‘you know what, we need some change here. we fought for equality but this has gone to far.’

                    In your example of catholics, sure not all are to blame, all are responsible. Responisible to do the right thing, responsible in coming forward and calling for reform, responsible in showing the rest of the community that catholics are contributing to society in a positive fashion.

                    • What lies are you talking about? And I think you got it wrong, Julia Gillard was not defending misogyny, she was speaking AGAINST misogyny and sexism, after having been called names such as “bitch” and “witch.” If you don’t think that is misogyny, think again. You don’t see male politicians using such language when talking about other male politicians. But they used those words about Julia Gillard.

                      Also, you’re wrong about feminists turning a blind eye to men’s disadvange in family courts. I’ve told you this before but nothing I say makes any difference with you, so what’s the point? But once again: feminists want to end the bias that favours women as primary caretakers because it’s unfair and it perpetuates dated gender roles that are harmful to both men and women. We’re talking about educated, thinking feminists, male and female. If there are some feminists who thinks courts should favour women, they haven’t really understood what feminism is about.

                      And you seriously don’t think anything good has come out of feminism? Riiight, well, I seriously disagree with you there. I think it’s pretty important that I have full human rights, thanks to feminists. Women being able to vote, inherit, manage their own money, get an education, have a career, choose their spouses or choose to be single are good things. So is women’s right to bodily autonomy, and the fact that when I talk to men, most of them see me as their equal and won’t try to belittle, intimidate or patronise me. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

                      It’s pretty important to me to have the status of a person who has full rights over my own life instead of being a second class citizen with limited rights and limited opportunities. If it wasn’t for feminism, women’s situation would be similar to what it is now in countries like Afganistan.

                      Women in those countries are completely dependent of men. Those women are not free to be themselves, to make decisions about their own lives. Men decide everything for them. Only a couple of centuries ago Western women were in a very similar situation but thanks to feminism, things have changed. It’s still not a perfectly equal world but there have been major improvements, even in my life time.

                      If you don’t think those are good things, I suggest you stop commenting here because I’m not going to talk to someone who thinks I don’t deserve full human rights.

                      I was wondering what you think the negative effects of feminism are, and you said that feminism has led to divorces and kids growing up without their fathers and therefor, increased crime.

                      But if you say feminism is to blame for divorces, then you’re basically saying that marriages don’t last if women are free to make choices. What does that imply about marriages, then? That women will only stay married if they’re forced to do so. And you think that would be good?

                      Marriage should be an equal companionship of willing partners. It has to be voluntary. An unhappy marriage is not a good growing envinronment for kids.

                      Also, there’s no direct correlation between single parent households and increased crime. Finland has one of the highest divorce rates in the world and lots of single parent households, but low crime rates. So there’s no cause and effect there. Broken homes can be harmful to kids, but the same is true of unhappy marriages. Divorced parents can still be good parents, and often they are.

  12. fbombsucks says:

    “What lies are you talking about? And I think you got it wrong, Julia Gillard was not defending misogyny, she was speaking AGAINST misogyny and sexism, after having been called names such as “bitch” and “witch.” If you don’t think that is misogyny, think again. You don’t see male politicians using such language when talking about other male politicians. But they used those words about Julia Gillard.”
    Sure on the surface Gillard was speaking against misogyny. But in her same rant she was defending a misogynist Slipper. As for what lies I’ve already covered those and if you really want to know what they are, do a google search. Feminisms lies are many and they are far and reaching in nature.
    “Also, you’re wrong about feminists turning a blind eye to men’s disadvange in family courts. I’ve told you this before but nothing I say makes any difference with you, so what’s the point? But once again: feminists want to end the bias that favours women as primary caretakers because it’s unfair and it perpetuates dated gender roles that are harmful to both men and women. We’re talking about educated, thinking feminists, male and female. If there are some feminists who thinks courts should favour women, they haven’t really understood what feminism is about.”
    Why is it that feminist groups lobby for such laws that disadvantage men in court? Men didn’t lobby for these laws which means they, in some very bad cases have to pay alimony for a child that isn’t theirs. How is that feminism changing anything for the greater good????
    “Women in those countries are completely dependent of men. Those women are not free to be themselves, to make decisions about their own lives. Men decide everything for them. Only a couple of centuries ago Western women were in a very similar situation but thanks to feminism, things have changed. It’s still not a perfectly equal world but there have been major improvements, even in my life time.”
    Name one thing that feminism has actually achieved for women. The ‘vote’ argument is rubbish because most men didn’t have the vote until only a short time before women in most countries. The british men who were sent off to WWI didn’t have the right to vote. And while they were dying, Pankhurst was jumping up and down about women having the vote. But not all women. Just women like her – Rich and of high status…
    The only thing I can see as I’ve mentioned before is that feminism has giving women better access to education. But feminism has also lowered the quality of that education.
    “If you don’t think those are good things, I suggest you stop commenting here because I’m not going to talk to someone who thinks I don’t deserve full human rights.”
    I never mentioned that you should have those things. You are telling me I am say that. What I’m saying is whilst feminism did initially have good intent, its execution and damage done to society is far worse than any good feminism has achieved.
    “But if you say feminism is to blame for divorces, then you’re basically saying that marriages don’t last if women are free to make choices. What does that imply about marriages, then? That women will only stay married if they’re forced to do so. And you think that would be good?”
    No feminism is discouraging families from existing, currently a single mother is better off finically, receiving hand outs from the government and child support from the father, than if the father (assuming he has a job) lived in the same home.

    “Also, there’s no direct correlation between single parent households and increased crime. Finland has one of the highest divorce rates in the world and lots of single parent households, but low crime rates. So there’s no cause and effect there. Broken homes can be harmful to kids, but the same is true of unhappy marriages. Divorced parents can still be good parents, and often they are.”

    http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326420/Children-parents-split-NINE-times-likely-commit-crime.html
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1995/03/bg1026nbsp-the-real-root-causes-of-violent-crime
    And just for you a study from Findland http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9514259416/isbn9514259416.pdf
    So there is my evidence of feminist lies. You just made one.

    • Not a lie. This is what I was talking about:
      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_per_100_mar-people-divorces-per-100-marriages
      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_vic-crime-total-victims

      Finland has the 4th highest divorce rates in the world but the number of crimes is 16th highest in the world. UK isn’t even in the top 20 of countries with highest divorce rates but the crime rates are 3rd highest in the world. So clearly divorces don’t necessarily lead to increased crime. Do your research before you accuse people of lying.

      Also, it’s just bizarre to claim that feminism had nothing to do with women getting the right to vote, or other improvements in women’s daily lives and women’s human rights situation.

      • fbombsucks says:

        “Also, there’s no direct correlation between SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS and increased crime.” See the links especially the Finnish study as it is quite comprehensive. I did do the research you –
        7.1. Main findings
        The offspring of single-parent families are mostly in as good a somatic health as the offspring of two-parent families. The risk of accidental injuries and poisoning was, however, significantly increased among both female and male offspring of single-parent families. Females from single-parent families also had abortions, pregnancies and pregnancy related complications more frequently than other females.
        Mortality among males (from 16 to 28 years of age) with single-parent family background was significantly increased compared to other males. The risk of committing suicide was particularly high. Among females any significant differences in mortality was not found, partly due to the small number of deaths during the follow-up time among females.
        The risk of criminal offending, violent offences and recidivism in particular, was significantly increased among males who were born to single-mother families. Non- violent crimes were associated only with parental divorce or death among males. The trend of an increased risk of criminality was also seen among females from single-parent families.
        The results of this thesis suggest that growing up in a single-parent family is a potentially powerful predictor of adult alcohol-related problems, i.e. early-onset, late- onset and recidive drunk driving among males. Among females with single-parent family background the increased risk of drunk driving was also present.
        Single-parent family environments (and factors related to them) experienced in childhood appear to have some negative effects to the well-being of the offspring. However, a single-parent family background may be a stressor that, in the larger scheme of things, has only minor effects on most of the offspring of such families.

        So yes you did lie.

        “Also, it’s just bizarre to claim that feminism had nothing to do with women getting the right to vote, or other improvements in women’s daily lives and women’s human rights situation.”

        PROVE IT. Did you not read my earlier comment on women’s right to vote vs mens right to vote?

        There are plenty of studies suggesting that women are less happy with their lives than they were 40 years ago:
        http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.

        • Okay, my bad, I should have made it clear that I was talking about increased crime in the whole society. The situation in Finland demonstrates that divorces don’t lead to high crime rates. Did you check the statistics I showed you?

          But yes, obviously, going through their parents’ divorce causes stress to kids, but as you youself quoted, “However, a single-parent family background may be a stressor that, in the larger scheme of things, has only minor effects on most of the offspring of such families.”

          You’ve taken that minor effect and blown it out of proportion, using it to try to discredit feminism. So if anyone is spreading lies here, it’s you. Social problems are complex, and there are always multiple factors at play. When a couple ends up getting divorced, they have a reason to do so. That reason is serious enough to make living together unbearable. Sometimes a divorce is the lesser evil, for the child as well, if the alternative is growing up in a home where the parents fight constantly. That leads to emotional problems as surely as divorce.

          Have you noticed this conversation is going nowhere? I’m not going to denounce feminism because you think it’s evil, especially seeing as you’ve based your opinion on feminism on what it’s not. And you are determined to keep your opinion of feminism, no matter how misinformed. I give you facts, you ignore them. I explain to you why it’s illogical to blame feminists of all sorts of weird shit some of them may have said or done – that example of the Catholics and their abortion laws – and you just brush it aside.

          When you make weird accusations about feminists I at least try to address them, no matter how unfounded they are. (Not that it makes any difference with you.) But I don’t need to prove to you that feminists fought for women to get the right to vote and that feminism has majorly improved women’s postion in the society! Those are historical facts! It would make as much sense for you to demand me to prove holocaust! (Or the World Wars, or industrialisation, or the French revolution.)

          And by the way, you keep telling me about the feminists who are lobbying for women to have more rights in family courts than men? Well, I haven’t encountered those feminists. Here’s what the feminists I have encountered have to say about that: https://twitter.com/judeinlondon/status/275595432988651521

          Feminism is not about oppressing men, or finding ways for women to benefit on men’s expense. It’s about women gaining the same rights as men already have. And yes, that means men will have to give up their habitual privileges (so that women can have rights, too) but that’s not oppression. That’s equality. The distress of the privileged has been eloquently addressed here: http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

          Your “feminist lies” have turned out to be strawman arguments or simple facts which you refuse to accept as facts even after I show you the evidence, like the statistics showing there’s no correlation between high divorce rates and high crime rates. Your evidence that feminism is bad has been anti-feminist propaganda or things you have interpreted to prove something when they don’t, like the article about single-parent households you just quoted so well demonstrates.

          Since nothing I say makes any difference with you, and you’ll just call me a liar to avoid having to think about what I’m saying, it’s pretty obvious you’re not here to have a discussion about feminism. Either you’re here just to troll me, or you think that going on about your misconceptions about feminism and throwing strawmen at me is going to make me denounce feminism.

          Well, that’s not going to happen. You wouldn’t expect a Catholic to give up their worldview because you think Catholicism is weird shit, and you’ve heard Catholics eat human flesh at their holy communion, and you don’t like it. Like Catholicism, Feminism is a worldview, too: I believe men and women are equally human, and should therefore have the same rights, liberties, opportunities and obligations. That’s what feminism is about. Just because some people misunderstand feminism doesn’t mean I’ll give it up. You’ve made up your own mind about what you think feminism is, and it’s obvious nothing can make you change your mind, so clearly, this discussion is over. Keeping at it would be a waste of time.

Say something!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s