Replacing "Feminism"

[Sarkhaan]

When did I become a misogynist?

I don't see a name change as a concession: I see it as aligning the language with the broader aims of a movement in its 3rd form. It isn't placating, and actually, many outwardly support the goals of the movement, but shy away from the term. Why is this happening? How can feminism be strengthened? How, after nearly a century, can we still be claiming "It's an education issue!", and refuse to even consider a change? Why is it assumed that any change must be on a misogynist's terms?

Because, fundamentally, the reason "feminist" is a dirty word in some circles is because misogynists have made a deliberate and concerted effort to turn "feminist" into a dirty word. There is nothing inherent to the word that makes it problematic - the name simply acknowledges, as you acknowledge, that the balance of power between men and women is still tilted hard in one direction (which does not, obviously, mean, that everything is always hunky-dory on the other side). I cannot see any "rebranding" of feminism as doing anything other than at best accomplishing nothing and at worst, and more likely, being taken as a concession that "yes, feminism really HAS gone too far!" I do not doubt for a fraction of an instant that, if somehow a global "rebranding" succeeded and all feminists started referring to ourselves as "gender equalists" or something, we would quickly start being called "gendernazis" (or maybe "equanazis," who knows), and the exact same bullshit characterization of feminists as man-hating bra-burning harpies would just turn into "those gender-equanazis are all man-hating bra-burning harpies." The only difference is that those people would get to add, "they basically admitted they hated men when they tried to fool us by taking 'fem' out of the name!" I can't see a way in which that could possibly help.

Did I mention I love you? Thank you for actually typing this in a clear, level-headed way that doesn't resort to crass assumptions.

I can appreciate that the system is horrendously skewed against women and for men. I have no delusions about this. And I can totally see those issues coming into play...however, to me, it is similar to the difference between "global warming" and "global climate change", similar to the difference between "gay marriage" and "marriage equality", and similar to the difference between "black pride" and "civil rights". The former, in all three cases, capture a sense of the problem and a sense of the solution, but don't actually hit all of the problems. Global warming ignores that some places will get colder. Gay marriage ignores those who don't have a gender, or are transgender. Black pride ignores Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc.

In the same way, feminism points out the many problems for women, but does not highlight all of the repercussions. The more accurate term also generally gains more support, even with most people still utilizing the less accurate term. Why? Because it better explains what is going on and why.

I do see admitting faults in the past strengthening a movement. I am waiting for the day HRC issues a public apology to trans folks. Feminism did go through a man-hating phase, and some members still subscribe to that theory. Hiding it away will alienate people who discover it on their own. Being upfront about it and showing "Hey! You're right! We got some things wrong, too! Let's see if we can fix it together" offers a much better chance for change.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Until people realize how they, themselves, are personally victimized in a system, they will be reluctant to fight at best, and will be antagonists at worst.

I just want to pull out this one line, because I really disagree with it. I am not personally victimized to any significant degree in a racist system - in fact, there's no doubt that as a lily-white person, I directly benefit from racism. For example, I am almost certainly more likely to get a job if I only have to compete against other white people, instead of facing the full field of candidates. Nonetheless, I am not in the least bit reluctant to fight against racism.

Now, I would argue that racism hurts us all as a society (perhaps that job I'm competing for is "cancer researcher," and not hiring the brilliant black lady instead of me will mean not finding a drug that would have saved countless lives), but that's not why I oppose racism. I oppose it because I am fully aware that people of color are people and deserve all the same privileges I have access to, and, well, to put it simply, because I'm not a dick. I don't need to benefit from gay people having marriage rights to think gay people should have marriage rights. I don't need to benefit from trans* people being able to be recognized as the gender they identify as to think trans* people should be recognized as the gender they identify as. I can be straight and cis and white and live my straight cis white life and still think those people who ARE profoundly affected by those issues deserve my full support, whether it benefits me directly or not. If someone approaches a social justice movement with the attitude of "what's in it for ME?" I'm not honestly sure I want them in my movement, because that person sounds like a fair-weather friend at best, and not unlikely to actively undermine the goals of the movement.

[Choronzon]

Did I mention I love you? Thank you for actually typing this in a clear, level-headed way that doesn't resort to crass assumptions.

Whats funny is Nailed said what has already been said multiple times. And has been said multiple times in pretty clear, non-inflammatory language.


Is theirs just the first post you actually read?

[Sarkhaan]

And again, rather than politely having a conversation, you become agressive and rude. Rather than providing the education that has been claimed renders my proposal moot, you claim your work done and accuse the other party of being dense.

TJ's posts don't exist in a vacuum, and you're wrongly assuming that the education hasn't been offered. It has. A thousand times. It was almost a weekly occurrence. TJ is either incapable of or not interested in fixing his ignorance. We've all heard the song before. We know all the words. It gets played all the damn time. So we change the station.

I don't waste my time educating people who refuse to learn.

Actually, it hasn't been said. I've read the entire thread, and until Poli made her post, not a single person took the time to calmly and politely discuss anything. My self included.

I'm glad you change the station. That will really educate people! I'm sorry you're bored of the conversation. I'm tired of explaining what the difference between "queer" and "gay" and "bi" are, but I have that conversation constantly. Because it's important. And you know what? Snapping at person X because I've already had this conversation 50 times before doesn't win person X over.

[Choronzon]

Actually, it hasn't been said. I've read the entire thread, and until Poli made her post, not a single person took the time to calmly and politely discuss anything. My self included.

It has been said. Dozens and dozens of times. In this thread, and in many, many others. We've all heard TJ's spiel before. We've all (some more than others) tried to educate him. He has no interest.

I'm glad you change the station. That will really educate people! I'm sorry you're bored of the conversation. I'm tired of explaining what the difference between "queer" and "gay" and "bi" are, but I have that conversation constantly. Because it's important. And you know what? Snapping at person X because I've already had this conversation 50 times before doesn't win person X over.

You may be content to explain the same thing over and over again to people who either cannot or will not understand. Thats nice for you. I wont. That doesn't make you a better person. It just makes you naive. Believe it or not, some people are perfectly comfortable in their ignorance. TJ is one of them.

What you continuously fail to get is that some people you simply will not win over.

[Sarkhaan]

Until people realize how they, themselves, are personally victimized in a system, they will be reluctant to fight at best, and will be antagonists at worst.

I just want to pull out this one line, because I really disagree with it. I am not personally victimized to any significant degree in a racist system - in fact, there's no doubt that as a lily-white person, I directly benefit from racism. For example, I am almost certainly more likely to get a job if I only have to compete against other white people, instead of facing the full field of candidates. Nonetheless, I am not in the least bit reluctant to fight against racism.

This is fair. It was a bit too wide of a statement...perhaps rephrased to "Many people will be reluctant to fight a system unless they see themselves as personally victimized"?
...still a little off the mark, but people are far more willing to fight when they have a personal stake in the battle, or someone they care about does.

I also think it is a bit of White Privilege (tm) to not have to deal with racism. A white person can actively choose to stay out of places in which they will be treated aggressively. I work in Oakland, I am hit with anti-white racism constantly. But I choose to work here. I could easily choose a different town that more matches my complexion. It's there, and it can be damaging in many, many ways.

Now, I would argue that racism hurts us all as a society (perhaps that job I'm competing for is "cancer researcher," and not hiring the brilliant black lady instead of me will mean not finding a drug that would have saved countless lives), but that's not why I oppose racism. I oppose it because I am fully aware that people of color are people and deserve all the same privileges I have access to, and, well, to put it simply, because I'm not a dick. I don't need to benefit from gay people having marriage rights to think gay people should have marriage rights. I don't need to benefit from trans* people being able to be recognized as the gender they identify as to think trans* people should be recognized as the gender they identify as. I can be straight and cis and white and live my straight cis white life and still think those people who ARE profoundly affected by those issues deserve my full support, whether it benefits me directly or not. If someone approaches a social justice movement with the attitude of "what's in it for ME?" I'm not honestly sure I want them in my movement, because that person sounds like a fair-weather friend at best, and not unlikely to actively undermine the goals of the movement.

I'm not sure any movement I identify with is at a level where they can pick who is in the movement or not...it may take a lot of fair-weather friends to bring about change. And, in fighting, many of those fair-weather friends become true activists.

It's excellent that there are people who...well...aren't dicks. But sometimes we're going to have to win over the dicks in order to make the world better. Sometimes that means talking on their terms (note: conversing with someone is not the same as capitulating). Sometimes it means holding firm (note: holding firm is not the same as demonizing the other).

[Sarkhaan]

Did I mention I love you? Thank you for actually typing this in a clear, level-headed way that doesn't resort to crass assumptions.

Whats funny is Nailed said what has already been said multiple times. And has been said multiple times in pretty clear, non-inflammatory language.


Is theirs just the first post you actually read?

No. She said it without the attitude and derision. Clearly, well stated, and not rude. Amazing how people will respond to that kind of thing, no?

There were 8 pages of outrage before my second post. No, you didn't say what she said nor how she said it. Or, at the very least, I didn't see it. But thanks.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Because, fundamentally, the reason "feminist" is a dirty word in some circles is because misogynists have made a deliberate and concerted effort to turn "feminist" into a dirty word. There is nothing inherent to the word that makes it problematic - the name simply acknowledges, as you acknowledge, that the balance of power between men and women is still tilted hard in one direction (which does not, obviously, mean, that everything is always hunky-dory on the other side). I cannot see any "rebranding" of feminism as doing anything other than at best accomplishing nothing and at worst, and more likely, being taken as a concession that "yes, feminism really HAS gone too far!" I do not doubt for a fraction of an instant that, if somehow a global "rebranding" succeeded and all feminists started referring to ourselves as "gender equalists" or something, we would quickly start being called "gendernazis" (or maybe "equanazis," who knows), and the exact same bullshit characterization of feminists as man-hating bra-burning harpies would just turn into "those gender-equanazis are all man-hating bra-burning harpies." The only difference is that those people would get to add, "they basically admitted they hated men when they tried to fool us by taking 'fem' out of the name!" I can't see a way in which that could possibly help.

Did I mention I love you? Thank you for actually typing this in a clear, level-headed way that doesn't resort to crass assumptions.

Heh, thanks. In fairness to the other people on "my side," though, I think there's definitely an element of "ugh, not this shit again" that comes into play here. Your argument isn't a terrible one (I mean, I disagree with it, but I don't think it's terrible ), but it contains elements in common with a lot of terrible ones, and I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that I've reached a point of bone-weariness with the arguments like "you can tell feminists are female supremacists who all hate men because it's got 'fem' right in the name," etc.

I can appreciate that the system is horrendously skewed against women and for men. I have no delusions about this. And I can totally see those issues coming into play...however, to me, it is similar to the difference between "global warming" and "global climate change", similar to the difference between "gay marriage" and "marriage equality", and similar to the difference between "black pride" and "civil rights". The former, in all three cases, capture a sense of the problem and a sense of the solution, but don't actually hit all of the problems. Global warming ignores that some places will get colder. Gay marriage ignores those who don't have a gender, or are transgender. Black pride ignores Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc.

Okay, I think this is the strongest point you've made yet. I can legitimately see an argument for "feminism" as a name being insufficiently descriptive and overly simplistic. I am way more amenable to the "it could be more accurate" argument than the "lots of people don't like the word" argument. I still think "feminism" is a pretty darn solid name, though - one of the things I like about it, as opposed to just "women's rights," is that it correctly identifies the problem as not just the devaluation of women but of the feminine in any form, and I feel like something like "gender egalitarian" glosses over that in favor of a warmer, fuzzier, less precise description.

I do see admitting faults in the past strengthening a movement. I am waiting for the day HRC issues a public apology to trans folks. Feminism did go through a man-hating phase, and some members still subscribe to that theory. Hiding it away will alienate people who discover it on their own. Being upfront about it and showing "Hey! You're right! We got some things wrong, too! Let's see if we can fix it together" offers a much better chance for change.

Here, I agree completely. I'm a big fan of feminists publicly condemning the racism, transphobia, etc. that has occasionally reared its nasty head in our movement, and I do think we're stronger for it. I just only want us to admit the faults we actually had/have, not the ones that have been ascribed to us, or the ones that aren't actually faults, and I think backing down on the term "feminism" falls more into those latter categories.

(Also, this is getting picky, but I'm a LITTLE leery of condemning past feminists for "man-hating." I'm not saying we shouldn't do so, but it has to be done with a measure of caution, since a fair amount of the "man-hating" in the past can be translated from "men are pretty terrible" to "my particular time and place is such that, realistically, most of the men around me actually ARE pretty terrible, not because of anything intrinsic to men, but because we as a society taught them to be pretty terrible." In the same way, I'd have a hard time asking a black man in 1850s Mississippi to apologize for saying, "white people are pretty terrible." I'd rather just go with, "This statement is not true now, and boy are we glad of it.")

[Sarkhaan]

Actually, it hasn't been said. I've read the entire thread, and until Poli made her post, not a single person took the time to calmly and politely discuss anything. My self included.

It has been said. Dozens and dozens of times. In this thread, and in many, many others. We've all heard TJ's spiel before. We've all (some more than others) tried to educate him. He has no interest.

Maybe you should try "talking to him" rather than "educating", given your brand of "education". He has several fair points that deserve recognition beyond you calling it his usual song and dance.

I'm glad you change the station. That will really educate people! I'm sorry you're bored of the conversation. I'm tired of explaining what the difference between "queer" and "gay" and "bi" are, but I have that conversation constantly. Because it's important. And you know what? Snapping at person X because I've already had this conversation 50 times before doesn't win person X over.

You may be content to explain the same thing over and over again to people who either cannot or will not understand. Thats nice for you. I wont. That doesn't make you a better person. It just makes you naive. Believe it or not, some people are perfectly comfortable in their ignorance. TJ is one of them.

What you continuously fail to get is that some people you simply will not win over.

[/quote]
No, that's not something I "continuously fail to get". I understand that. I'm not talking about converting 100% of the population, nor have I ever made that claim.

[Gravlen]

Because the next thing comes along, and then the next thing, and then the next thing.

The women who don't identify with feminism don't fail to identify with it because it's got "fem" in the title and they think that means it's only about women. They don't identify with feminism for a variety for other reasons - the name's just an excuse. Remove that excuse and you get onto the next one.

Changing the name to make it more clear that it's about equality more widely than just for women won't make them any more likely to support the movement. The only thing that would do that would be fundamentally changing the movement to be about something other than being pro-equality.

When there is a problem of inequality facing men ... as I have seen ample times before on NSG ... a large number of so-called "feminists" announce that it's not their problem and shouldn't be a priority for feminism.

Women bear the brunt of sexist discourse and institutions, and therefore women merit primacy in the struggle for gender equality. Hence feminism works fine as a gender equality movement.

"I get that you have problems and I'll support you whenever I can, but right now my house is burning down and I don't really feel like abandoning that to help you extinguish your bonfire"

Or, to put it another way, everyone has shit and it's nice to try and help people fight that shit when you can, but we're kind of too busy dealing with our own shit to come and sort yours out for you.

Et cetera. When the question is "Hey, would feminism come help with X issue affecting men?" it's "FEMINISM IS 4 WIMMEN U SILLY MANZ!"

Your examples doesn't support your claim.

Do you really not understand why people look at repeated statements like that, and come to the conclusion that feminism isn't about equality? Look at feminism's failure to fight the good fight against gender inequity in child custody, in early childhood education, in secondary education, in post-secondary education, draft registration [despite having leveled some objections thirty years ago, yes, we still have it; and no, feminists are not very engaged with the issue], et cetera?

The simple fact of the matter is that you have looked at the "fem" in feminism's name and you have made a clear public decision that its first priority must be helping women; not fighting for equality. That men are a "them," a group that should "go sort their own shit out."

The simple fact of the matter is that men aren't allowed to participate in feminism at a high level without pushback from women, and if they start concentrating on issues they perceive as men's issues, watch out!

Question: Those people who feel let down by feminism, especially those men who feel that feminists don't care about equality on their terms... Why haven't they started an Equal Rights Movement? They might have, of course, and I've just not heard about it. All I've heard about are Men's Rights Movements.

Also, if the Feminist Movement turned into an Equal Rights Movement, wouldn't the issues be the same? Why would changing the name change what they're fighting for / against?

[Choronzon]

Maybe you should try "talking to him" rather than "educating", given your brand of "education". He has several fair points that deserve recognition beyond you calling it his usual song and dance.

If having your wrong statements corrected shatters anyone's precious little ego, tough shit. Don't say wrong statements.

"If you correct them they might entrench!" is a stupid argument.

[Gravlen]

Actually, it hasn't been said. I've read the entire thread, and until Poli made her post, not a single person took the time to calmly and politely discuss anything. My self included.

Indeed... So now that you're calm and polite, do you wish to comment on the Scandinavian situation I've mentioned?

[Nailed to the Perch]

If only your posting history, this post included, validated that statement.

EDIT: I keep hoping that one day you'll realize that all the problems you ascribe to feminism are the result of patriarchy, which feminism seeks to eliminate, and so they are actually trying to help men. I know that its foolish of me to assume that such a point will ever sink in, but I tell myself that anyway.

And again, rather than politely having a conversation, you become agressive and rude. Rather than providing the education that has been claimed renders my proposal moot, you claim your work done and accuse the other party of being dense.

I wonder how my students would do if I ran my classroom that way...education, indeed.

Ehhhh...I'm gonna take Choronzon's side on this one. Some people, unfortunately, really are lost causes. If you had a student who quite obviously refused to learn and instead sat in the back of the room yelling and disrupting the class (possibly by declaring things like "women can't possibly understand the REAL problem with rape, which is false accusations against men!"), at a certain point, you'd probably stop trying to educate them and just kick them out of the classroom until they figured out how to listen to other people.

[Sarkhaan]

Did I mention I love you? Thank you for actually typing this in a clear, level-headed way that doesn't resort to crass assumptions.

Heh, thanks. In fairness to the other people on "my side," though, I think there's definitely an element of "ugh, not this shit again" that comes into play here. Your argument isn't a terrible one (I mean, I disagree with it, but I don't think it's terrible ), but it contains elements in common with a lot of terrible ones, and I don't think I speak just for myself when I say that I've reached a point of bone-weariness with the arguments like "you can tell feminists are female supremacists who all hate men because it's got 'fem' right in the name," etc.

Oh, trust me. I know it verges on a lot of other arguments. What amazes me (no, it doesn't, this is NSG) is that, despite my best attempts, people still ascribed those attitudes to me, despite many of the people having seen me around here frequently over the last decade and them being fully literate, reasonably intelligent people who usually can follow an argument. 8 pages with out me posting (and few to no posts defending my side) is impressive, even by NSG standards.

I can appreciate that the system is horrendously skewed against women and for men. I have no delusions about this. And I can totally see those issues coming into play...however, to me, it is similar to the difference between "global warming" and "global climate change", similar to the difference between "gay marriage" and "marriage equality", and similar to the difference between "black pride" and "civil rights". The former, in all three cases, capture a sense of the problem and a sense of the solution, but don't actually hit all of the problems. Global warming ignores that some places will get colder. Gay marriage ignores those who don't have a gender, or are transgender. Black pride ignores Latinos, Asians, Pacific Islanders, etc.

Okay, I think this is the strongest point you've made yet. I can legitimately see an argument for "feminism" as a name being insufficiently descriptive and overly simplistic. I am way more amenable to the "it could be more accurate" argument than the "lots of people don't like the word" argument. I still think "feminism" is a pretty darn solid name, though - one of the things I like about it, as opposed to just "women's rights," is that it correctly identifies the problem as not just the devaluation of women but of the feminine in any form, and I feel like something like "gender egalitarian" glosses over that in favor of a warmer, fuzzier, less precise description.

See, people? Conversation.
My argument (that in my head, not necessarily the words that made it to the screen today) was always rooted in "it could be more accurate", and that ties into "people will tend to support it more when they understand its relevance to them"...not so much "people don't like it". How well that came across is clearly debatable.

I do agree, and that isn't something that I had considered...that it isn't just about the denigration of the "female", but of the "feminine". And yes, I agree that "gender egalitarian" is more marketing term than political movement.

I do see admitting faults in the past strengthening a movement. I am waiting for the day HRC issues a public apology to trans folks. Feminism did go through a man-hating phase, and some members still subscribe to that theory. Hiding it away will alienate people who discover it on their own. Being upfront about it and showing "Hey! You're right! We got some things wrong, too! Let's see if we can fix it together" offers a much better chance for change.

Here, I agree completely. I'm a big fan of feminists publicly condemning the racism, transphobia, etc. that has occasionally reared its nasty head in our movement, and I do think we're stronger for it. I just only want us to admit the faults we actually had/have, not the ones that have been ascribed to us, or the ones that aren't actually faults, and I think backing down on the term "feminism" falls more into those latter categories.

I could see that. I'm not sure that a name change signals defeat, however. Sometimes, it's just an evolution.

(Also, this is getting picky, but I'm a LITTLE leery of condemning past feminists for "man-hating." I'm not saying we shouldn't do so, but it has to be done with a measure of caution, since a fair amount of the "man-hating" in the past can be translated from "men are pretty terrible" to "my particular time and place is such that, realistically, most of the men around me actually ARE pretty terrible, not because of anything intrinsic to men, but because we as a society taught them to be pretty terrible." In the same way, I'd have a hard time asking a black man in 1850s Mississippi to apologize for saying, "white people are pretty terrible." I'd rather just go with, "This statement is not true now, and boy are we glad of it.")

That's...a very good way to state it. The problem with what I have read of it (admittedly, my early feminist readings were pretty light) is that, as is all too common, the wide brush goes just a little too far.

[Camicon]

Do you really not understand why people look at repeated statements like that, and come to the conclusion that feminism isn't about equality? Look at feminism's failure to fight the good fight against gender inequity in child custody, in early childhood education, in secondary education, in post-secondary education, draft registration [despite having leveled some objections thirty years ago, yes, we still have it; and no, feminists are not very engaged with the issue], et cetera?

The simple fact of the matter is that you have looked at the "fem" in feminism's name and you have made a clear public decision that its first priority must be helping women; not fighting for equality. That men are a "them," a group that should "go sort their own shit out."

The simple fact of the matter is that men aren't allowed to participate in feminism at a high level without pushback from women, and if they start concentrating on issues they perceive as men's issues, watch out!

Question: Those people who feel let down by feminism, especially those men who feel that feminists don't care about equality on their terms... Why haven't they started an Equal Rights Movement? They might have, of course, and I've just not heard about it. All I've heard about are Men's Rights Movements.

Also, if the Feminist Movement turned into an Equal Rights Movement, wouldn't the issues be the same? Why would changing the name change what they're fighting for / against?

No, but there is a Men Rights movement. MRA's. Largely sexist men that just want to shout about how awful feminists are. Not so much about equality, or even about supporting men where they need it. More about throwing temper tantrums.

Maybe you should try "talking to him" rather than "educating", given your brand of "education". He has several fair points that deserve recognition beyond you calling it his usual song and dance.

If having your wrong statements corrected shatters anyone's precious little ego, tough shit. Don't say wrong statements.

"If you correct them they might entrench!" is a stupid argument.

It's also largely true. Yelling at a person "YOU'RE WRONG!" over and over doesn't do anything but make them irritated/angry/upset/etcetera. People in such a mindset are not generally open to re-evaluating their views, especially if it means bringing them closer in line with the views held by the person shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!".

[Gravlen]

Or Equalnazis.

Freaking ninja penguins...

[Tahar Joblis]

In a universe that contains Phyllis Schlafly, one has to be profoundly ignorant to pretend that women cannot possibly be misogynists.

Warren Farrell is an asshole. The fact that some women are also assholes does not somehow redeem him. The dude literally argued that fathers raping their daughters isn't so bad because most of the rapists report enjoying it, even if (go figure!) their victims seem to disagree.

This would generally be a misrepresentation of Farrell's position on incest. There's a "genitally caressing" Penthouse quote, which Farrell maintains is the result of Penthouse misquoting him - misprint, typo, etc - when what he said was "generally." This was, by the way, back when Warren Farrell was still vigorously identifying himself as feminist.

The original Penthouse interview does touch on father-daughter incest. It's very difficult to read this:

The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisments, calling explicitly for positive female experiences, Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse -- 60 percent positive, 20 percent negative. "Either men see these relationships differently," comments Farrell, "or I am getting selective reporting from women."

And suggest from that that Farrell is endorsing father-daughter incest, or arguing that it's a good thing. We can, actually, suggest that this is the origin point of his split with some feminists, but the fact that he initially had plans to write a book on incest - and then backed away from the project without finishing it after feminists told him it was a bad idea - doesn't mean he's pro-incest, though it can, I'm finding, help fill in the timeline of when Farrell and feminism stopped having lovey-dovey time together. To the contrary, when he expresses judgement on incest - something he was carefully refraining from doing when he did research on incest - he has referred to it negatively, quite consistently.

But Farrell says Friedan has been unhappy with him ever since he told her about his plans to write a book on incest that would include stories of "those who had positive (incest) experiences."

Link

Warren: With The Myth of Male Power, NOW and the feminist men like Michael Kimmel called up to TV shows in the United States and Canada and from what I heard from producers that leaked this to me, said things like, "Warren Farrell recommends rape and incest and he will set feminism back twenty years and if you produce a show with him, don't expect us to be recommending books from feminists in the future to you."

I did two articles that were accepted for Modern Maturity, one of the largest circulation magazines in the US. After the articles were accepted, edited and paid for, one feminist researcher objected to them and got Modern Maturity to drop both articles. And regarding the places like the New York Times in which I had published every single thing I had written when I was a feminist, since I have questioned feminism nothing I have written has been published. When I was doing the Donahue Show as a feminist, I was on seven times. I was on once where I deviated from the feminist position and I was never invited back.

Steven: What evidence did they have that supposedly you were promoting incest or rape? Was there any evidence of that?

Warren: None whatsoever except that I mentioned both words. The incest thing was very ridiculous because I just made an analogy about workplace sex being incestuous. I said that when colleagues in the same company have sex together, it was like people in the same family having sex together. And they took that and said I was recommending incest. It really shocked me that the producers didn't read for themselves what was being said. And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women.

Link

I am stunned by your suggestion that I would approve of fathers genitally caressing daughters, or anything to that effect. I do not approve of any form of father-daughter sexual contact. And I have not approved of that in the past. If anyone has quoted me to that effect, she or he has misquoted me.

Link.

A few years ago I informed Liz Kates that the 1977 article in Penthouse about incest had misquoted me - that the word "generally" had been mistranscribed as "genitally." Nevertheless, Kates and a woman named Trish Wilson continue to publicize the misquote. I am seeking legal action. They have been making similar accusations of many other men's issues; their most pointed attacks are on men working on fathers' issues ("they all just want to molest their children").

Link

excellent questions. thank you.
i'll give you some bottom lines, then some depth: bottom-line, i did this research when my research skills as a new Ph.D. were in the foreground and my raising two daughters was in the future. had i and my wife helped raise two daughters first, the intellectual interest would have evaporated. life teaches; children teach you more.
now, for some depth. i haven't published anything on this research because i saw from the article from which you are quoting how easy it was to have the things i said about the way the people i interviewed felt be confused with what i felt. i have always been opposed to incest, and still am, but i was trying to be a good researcher and ask people about their experience without the bias of assuming it was negative or positive. i had learned this from the misinformation we had gotten about gay people by working from the starting assumption of its dysfunction.
the next thing i learned is how easy it is to confuse the messenger with the message, especially when the article is not being written by you, but about you.
what i love about this interview style is that it allows me to say what i feel in some depth, rather than have one summarize what i feel in a way that doesn't represent it.

Link

As far as I can tell, he has not spoken non-negatively about incest in public since the interview with Penthouse; and in that interview, he's trying quite hard to take a non-judgemental position for the purpose of unbiased inquiry.

From this, you get "HE WANTS FATHERS TO RAPE THEIR DAUGHTERS!!!1ONE!1"

If that was really his public position, he wouldn't be getting generally positive interviews from the NYT, LAT, Salon.com, NPR, Oprah, and the like. Saying he supports rape and incest requires that you do a great deal of "deep reading" of what he actually says and writes; and ignoring a great deal of what he quite explicitly says to the contrary. You can argue that Warren Farrell is secretly a supporter of rape and incest; but you have to also assert that he's consistently lying when he explicitly says that rape and incest are bad, and the case for that is, to put it mildly, a lot harder to make than the case that key prominent feminists hate men.

Selective quotation can yield much more direct results on that topic than on the topic of "WARREN FARREL IS TEH RAPEZ0R INCESTMAN!!!"

I'm not saying that feminism hates men, by the way; and not even necessarily every feminist who has said something that by itself looks misandrist is actually a misandrist person with misandrist views and/or misandrist intentions. A few feminists are misandrist, namely because - as I've mentioned - feminism does not take steps to exclude misandrists from its ranks, but the movement as a whole simply does not care about men.

[Aurora Novus]

Also, if the Feminist Movement turned into an Equal Rights Movement, wouldn't the issues be the same? Why would changing the name change what they're fighting for / against?

I think really what it would change would be it would become more inclusive to other issues, instead of just the issues of women. Someone has brought up before that when a group of people have it worse off, more attention needs to be brought upon them. While it's true that groups that aren't worse off don't need as much time and energy spent on them, the issue of attention is another matter. It's one thing to dedicate more time to solving a greater problem, it's another thing to use the greater problem as a means to cover up and hide people's eyesight from the sufferings of others. That only lends to people becoming vindictive and aggressive towards your movement. It doesn't really help anyone.

Making it a de-gendered movement, while solving the same issues (and more effectively in my opinion, as the main reason I think these issues exist in the first place, is our gendered way of thinking), would also allow for greater and more comfortable inclusion of other groups that are wronged. No one would feel that any other group is wanting them to be put down, because no group is trying to gain more attention. Everything would be blanketed under a very broad "mistreatment is bad" type thinking, instead of "mistreatment against Group X is bad."

Also, de-gendering the movement would make for a more intellectually open atmosphere in my opinion. When you make movement s tailored to specific groups, those groups tend to gain an "us vs them" mentality, which just further divides society, and makes them hostile to the "other" groups. It can make them blindly support one another, even if they are in the wrong, or taking an unwise course of action.

[Sarkhaan]

And again, rather than politely having a conversation, you become agressive and rude. Rather than providing the education that has been claimed renders my proposal moot, you claim your work done and accuse the other party of being dense.

I wonder how my students would do if I ran my classroom that way...education, indeed.

Ehhhh...I'm gonna take Choronzon's side on this one. Some people, unfortunately, really are lost causes. If you had a student who quite obviously refused to learn and instead sat in the back of the room yelling and disrupting the class (possibly by declaring things like "women can't possibly understand the REAL problem with rape, which is false accusations against men!"), at a certain point, you'd probably stop trying to educate them and just kick them out of the classroom until they figured out how to listen to other people.

The problem is that the tenor of this conversation has been that of "feminists" and "opposition". If he is a lost cause, one could stop responding to him.
Perhaps that's why I'm a teacher. If there is a student in my class, I'm not giving up on them, regardless of how much of a pain in the ass they are.

[Sarkhaan]

Actually, it hasn't been said. I've read the entire thread, and until Poli made her post, not a single person took the time to calmly and politely discuss anything. My self included.

Indeed... So now that you're calm and polite, do you wish to comment on the Scandinavian situation I've mentioned?

...can you link to it?

Sorry...this thread has done a lot to remind me why I don't come around too often now, and I really just don't feel like digging to make sure I'm responding appropriately.

[Sarkhaan]

Maybe you should try "talking to him" rather than "educating", given your brand of "education". He has several fair points that deserve recognition beyond you calling it his usual song and dance.

If having your wrong statements corrected shatters anyone's precious little ego, tough shit. Don't say wrong statements.

"If you correct them they might entrench!" is a stupid argument.

Not if you correct him. If you act like an asshole while you correct them, then yes. They will entrench.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

[Choronzon]

If he is a lost cause, one could stop responding to him.

Because I have a civic duty to protect others from charlatans who would coax their misogyny in a concern for equality. Impressionable minds are at stake.

If having your wrong statements corrected shatters anyone's precious little ego, tough shit. Don't say wrong statements.

"If you correct them they might entrench!" is a stupid argument.

Not if you correct him. If you act like an asshole while you correct them, then yes. They will entrench.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

That is true if you're dealing with someone who actually has an interest in learning, rather than someone who has no interest in learning.

[Nailed to the Perch]

Freaking ninja penguins...

Dang. There really is EVERYTHING on the internet.

Nork.

[Gravlen]

*Snip*

The formatting of your post, especially the overuse of [url]s, makes it unreadable.

[Gravlen]

Indeed... So now that you're calm and polite, do you wish to comment on the Scandinavian situation I've mentioned?

...can you link to it?

Sorry...this thread has done a lot to remind me why I don't come around too often now, and I really just don't feel like digging to make sure I'm responding appropriately.

Sure, here you go:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=13287746#p13287746

You can look at my previous post in the quote pyramid for some context. You responded to it before, but I feel it brings an interesting dimension to the argument.