"Get Off Of My Side!": Embarrassing Allies

[Laerod]

Yes, I prefer that term as well. I don't like being called a feminist, or even worse, A feminist ally.

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, maybe it's just juvenile South Park hipsterism. You know, solving that "big conflict" by finding the "middle ground". Sort of how Choose Life pretends it's a compromise between Pro Choice and Pro Life despite being Pro Life in everything but name.

[Kazirstan]

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, maybe it's just juvenile South Park hipsterism. You know, solving that "big conflict" by finding the "middle ground". Sort of how Choose Life pretends it's a compromise between Pro Choice and Pro Life despite being Pro Life in everything but name.

I don't really want to distance myself from the feminist movement, what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many, but they give the entire feminist movement a bad wrap. Sort of like police brutality in the US; most of the officers are good, upstanding people, but a few asshole are making the whole force look bad.

[Cata Larga]

Yes, I prefer that term as well. I don't like being called a feminist, or even worse, A feminist ally.

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, firstly, I feel like I can't or shouldn't be a "feminist" because, hell, I'm a white, middle-class, cisgendered male. How could I when I'm, like, the source of the problem?

Secondly, I fear that mainline feminism is getting much too radical, what with this talk about "the oppressor" and all.

[Laerod]

Well, maybe it's just juvenile South Park hipsterism. You know, solving that "big conflict" by finding the "middle ground". Sort of how Choose Life pretends it's a compromise between Pro Choice and Pro Life despite being Pro Life in everything but name.

I don't really want to distance myself from the feminist movement, what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many, but they give the entire feminist movement a bad wrap. Sort of like police brutality in the US; most of the officers are good, upstanding people, but a few asshole are making the whole force look bad.

Name some.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, firstly, I feel like I can't or shouldn't be a "feminist" because, hell, I'm a white, middle-class, cisgendered male. How could I when I'm, like, the source of the problem?

Secondly, I fear that mainline feminism is getting much too radical, what with this talk about "the oppressor" and all.

You do realise that is describing many men who try to or wish to participate in feminist groups at universities, right?

[Agritum]

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, maybe it's just juvenile South Park hipsterism. You know, solving that "big conflict" by finding the "middle ground". Sort of how Choose Life pretends it's a compromise between Pro Choice and Pro Life despite being Pro Life in everything but name.

It's called the Balance Fallacy, if I remember well.

[Laerod]

This is the problem with society at the moment. When feminism gets painted with a broad-ass brush that makes people, men and women (et al) want to distance themselves when they're actually after a common goal (through different means of course, which is presumably where differences arise).

Well, firstly, I feel like I can't or shouldn't be a "feminist" because, hell, I'm a white, middle-class, cisgendered male. How could I when I'm, like, the source of the problem?

There's only so much you can do about privilege. Recognizing its existence is a decent first step.

Secondly, I fear that mainline feminism is getting much too radical, what with this talk about "the oppressor" and all.

Take a moment to put yourself in the shoes of women and in particular vocal women feminists and ask yourself how that is not a valid statement.

[Kelinfort]

I don't give a shit if crazies share my beliefs. They may distract from the discussion, but they're already not credible on their own terms.

[Kazirstan]

I don't really want to distance myself from the feminist movement, what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many, but they give the entire feminist movement a bad wrap. Sort of like police brutality in the US; most of the officers are good, upstanding people, but a few asshole are making the whole force look bad.

Name some.

I couldn't name any famous or we'll known ones off the top of my head, but I know of several in my school. Fortunately, they are few in numbers. The feminist club in my school actually does some pretty good work, and I support them, but the radical ones are sort of ridiculous. They call for the removal of the dress code because it's "oppresive" and I have actually heard one of them say, with my own ears, that "all the male teachers are perverts" or something of the like. Apparently one of the male teachers brought a dress code violation to a (female) student's attention, and that made him a creep or something.

You may think I'm making stuff up, but these types of feminists exist, and I know a few. I could probably poke around the Internet for a while and find some particularly extreme feminists that are at least sort of well known.

[L Ron Cupboard]

... what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many...

All the feminists I have known in person have been reasonable people ( a fair few given that I am now in my mid-fifties), all the feminist authors whose works I have read have made reasoned arguments. I can only assume that these feminazis are a product of the internet; either people abusing the anonymity to vent, trolls of either gender, or simply the bogeywoman in the heads of some men.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Oh ya, those annoy me as well. Feminists who don't know they are feminists annoy me as well.

"I support equal rights for men and women, but I'm not a feminist". Yes you are a feminist, you just clearly don't know what feminist means, which is to say literally that.

Well, I prefer the term "egalitarian", personally.

Well ya that's completely fine, thats just another name for feminist in this context. I'm talking about those who say they are opposed to feminism, and then say they support equal rights for men and women.

[Laerod]

Name some.

I couldn't name any famous or we'll known ones off the top of my head, but I know of several in my school. Fortunately, they are few in numbers. The feminist club in my school actually does some pretty good work, and I support them, but the radical ones are sort of ridiculous. They call for the removal of the dress code because it's "oppresive" and I have actually heard one of them say, with my own ears, that "all the male teachers are perverts" or something of the like. Apparently one of the male teachers brought a dress code violation to a (female) student's attention, and that made him a creep or something.

This actually explains a lot. Part of your problem here is that your basing this on your observations of teenagers. Teens are, by and large, more easily excitable and exhuberant in adopting causes and pursuing them. This is partly because of a lack of experience with the world beyond school and in putting yourself into other's shoes. These things take practice and that phase is part of growing up.

So basically, don't base your image of feminism on kids. Most grow up.

You may think I'm making stuff up, but these types of feminists exist, and I know a few. I could probably poke around the Internet for a while and find some particularly extreme feminists that are at least sort of well known.

They probably do, but their number is extremely limited to the point that bringing them up often becomes a false equivalence.

[Tahar Joblis]

Well, maybe it's just juvenile South Park hipsterism. You know, solving that "big conflict" by finding the "middle ground". Sort of how Choose Life pretends it's a compromise between Pro Choice and Pro Life despite being Pro Life in everything but name.

I don't really want to distance myself from the feminist movement, what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many, but they give the entire feminist movement a bad wrap. Sort of like police brutality in the US; most of the officers are good, upstanding people, but a few asshole are making the whole force look bad.

With both police and feminists, the problematic elements are more common than proponents want to admit... and in many cases the bad actors are protected by a large segment of mainstream proponents.

You don't really have to go further than the various Andrea Dworkin eulogies. Make no bones about it; this was a woman who hated men and had delusional and fantastical ideas about gender relations... and the mainstream feminist organizations acted like a hero had died that day. Glowing eulogies were published in mainstream newspapers. Whatever internal dissent there was over the details of Dworkin's particular stances on issues, her identity as a feminist and her claims to high moral stature were left unchallenged by the vast majority of feminists writing about her.

Likewise, even Valerie Solanas had among the ranks of her supporters no less than Robin Morgan - who protested at her trial, republished a segment of the SCUM manifesto, etc; was, and remains, one of the most prominent feminist leaders. (This was a bad idea in a number of ways; and when Solanas got out of the mental institution, Solanas would burn lots of bridges. See in particular hits #1 and #2 in the text search of that book.) It is (at a minimum) very difficult to be too misandrist (man-hating) for the movers and shakers of feminism to accept your affiliation as feminist.

There are not simply a few assholes, in either case. There are some departments that are run, top to bottom, by assholes. The assholes are systematically protected by people who otherwise aren't acting like assholes; and the people who work hard to protect assholes are in turn protected by the whole. Occasionally someone makes a large-scale effort to fix one or more police departments.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

People shouldn't associate with Solanas and Dworkin in great part because feminism that isn't there for trans women and sex workers isn't worth shit. Not to mention the inherent white supremacy that is asking for annihilation of whatever group coming from a white person... (Protip: it's not feminism if it is blatantly disrespectful to Jewish, Indigenous American and black women.)

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

[Napkiraly]

I don't really want to distance myself from the feminist movement, what I want to distance myself from are the feminazi man-haters, of which there aren't many, but they give the entire feminist movement a bad wrap. Sort of like police brutality in the US; most of the officers are good, upstanding people, but a few asshole are making the whole force look bad.

Name some.

Well I wouldn't use the word "feminazi" (mainly because it's ridiculous), but there are/were some radical feminists who essentially promoted oppressing males. Top of my head is Mary Daly, who started off as promoting equality before later on advocating a reversal of the social order with women dominating men. However these sorts of people are in the extreme minority and ought to not effect one's ties to the overall feminist movement, since such individuals are rightfully labelled as loony.

[Laerod]

Name some.

Well I wouldn't use the word "feminazi" (mainly because it's ridiculous), but there are/were some radical feminists who essentially promoted oppressing males. Top of my head is Mary Daly, who started off as promoting equality before later on advocating a reversal of the social order with women dominating men. However these sorts of people are in the extreme minority and ought to not effect one's ties to the overall feminist movement, since such individuals are rightfully labelled as loony.

I'll be quite honest, my goal was not so much to dispute the existence of radical feminists that hate men, but to confirm my hypothesis that Kazirstan's experience was primarily anecdotal and nebulous, reenforced by repetition.

They obviously exist. I mean, just look at Hetrio's post:

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

[Napkiraly]

Well I wouldn't use the word "feminazi" (mainly because it's ridiculous), but there are/were some radical feminists who essentially promoted oppressing males. Top of my head is Mary Daly, who started off as promoting equality before later on advocating a reversal of the social order with women dominating men. However these sorts of people are in the extreme minority and ought to not effect one's ties to the overall feminist movement, since such individuals are rightfully labelled as loony.

I'll be quite honest, my goal was not so much to dispute the existence of radical feminists that hate men, but to confirm my hypothesis that Kazirstan's experience was primarily anecdotal and nebulous, reenforced by repetition.

They obviously exist. I mean, just look at Hetrio's post:

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

Ah my bad.

[Tahar Joblis]

I couldn't name any famous or we'll known ones off the top of my head, but I know of several in my school. Fortunately, they are few in numbers. The feminist club in my school actually does some pretty good work, and I support them, but the radical ones are sort of ridiculous. They call for the removal of the dress code because it's "oppresive" and I have actually heard one of them say, with my own ears, that "all the male teachers are perverts" or something of the like. Apparently one of the male teachers brought a dress code violation to a (female) student's attention, and that made him a creep or something.

This actually explains a lot. Part of your problem here is that your basing this on your observations of teenagers. Teens are, by and large, more easily excitable and exhuberant in adopting causes and pursuing them. This is partly because of a lack of experience with the world beyond school and in putting yourself into other's shoes. These things take practice and that phase is part of growing up.

So basically, don't base your image of feminism on kids. Most grow up.

You may think I'm making stuff up, but these types of feminists exist, and I know a few. I could probably poke around the Internet for a while and find some particularly extreme feminists that are at least sort of well known.

They probably do, but their number is extremely limited to the point that bringing them up often becomes a false equivalence.

Not really.

You look at the number; the position; the power; and the prestige.

Valerie Solanas. Had low power within the movement, but surprisingly high prestige. Is still taken seriously by a segment of radical feminists, who are still celebrating her work.

Andrea Dworkin & Catherine MacKinnon. Two anti-pornography feminists who, in the 1980s, routinely appeared in front of Congress; put together model legislation to support their agendas. High power within the movement (they won the "feminist sex wars") and outside of the movement (because, in part, they had a lot of allies across the aisle among social conservatives). High prestige within the movement; see in particular here.

Robin Morgan. "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," she wrote. She defended Valerie Solanas. Why? Because she thinks that it's honorable and viable to hate men. High power, high prestige.

[Tahar Joblis]

People shouldn't associate with Solanas and Dworkin in great part because feminism that isn't there for trans women and sex workers isn't worth shit.

Solanas is an exhibition of one thing: That you cannot be too misandrist for some significant segment of radical feminists to line up to defend you.

Dworkin & MacKinnon are an exhibition of another: You can be a powerful and central figure within the feminist movement while being quite blatantly misandrist.

Not to mention the inherent white supremacy that is asking for annihilation of whatever group coming from a white person... (Protip: it's not feminism if it is blatantly disrespectful to Jewish, Indigenous American and black women.)

The "disrespectful" feminists who inflame minorities with their racism are not being disowned at a very quick rate.

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

Hatred of any group is dangerous.

And it has effects.

Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience.

Note that? That's someone in a position of power, who could cause significant harm to male students at Vassar.

Guess what?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/07/13369/
http://watchdogwire.com/pennsylvania/20 ... r-college/

Not a harmless position for her to take. There are lots of people in positions of power who either hate men or hold a view that is constructed from an ideological foundation built by people who hate men.

People hating men is one of the reasons why we have dysfunctional rape-related policies on college campuses. It's one of the reasons why research on women victimizing men has been obstructed, marginalized, and its impact on policy minimized. It's one of the reasons why we don't have domestic violence shelters helping men. It's one of the reasons why we have sexist policies and practice, in general. It is not harmless to hate men.

[Genivaria]

As far as Feminism goes I prefer to just embrace the Emma Watson position and the HeforShe movement.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I'll be quite honest, my goal was not so much to dispute the existence of radical feminists that hate men, but to confirm my hypothesis that Kazirstan's experience was primarily anecdotal and nebulous, reenforced by repetition.

They obviously exist. I mean, just look at Hetrio's post:

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

I implied women being oppressive in mass against males and masculinity in our society to a point where they are abused and degraded is not going to be a thing.

Of course these people are messed up and ridiculous. The issue is, I'm far more afraid of the consequences of other gender-related ideologies, from people who commit school massacres to ISIL terrorists to TERFs.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

I'll be quite honest, my goal was not so much to dispute the existence of radical feminists that hate men, but to confirm my hypothesis that Kazirstan's experience was primarily anecdotal and nebulous, reenforced by repetition.

They obviously exist. I mean, just look at Hetrio's post:

I implied women being oppressive in mass against males and masculinity in our society to a point where they are abused and degraded is not going to be a thing.

Of course these people are messed up and ridiculous. The issue is, I'm far more afraid of the consequences of other gender-related ideologies, from people who commit school massacres to ISIL terrorists to TERFs.

Didn't you get the memo, a hypothetical situation that's highly unlikely to ever occur is directly comparable to a situation that really exists.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

Can hatred of men really be dangerous when such kinds will be prosecuted by given institutions of perpetuation of power and the average woman, or, hell, the average feminist, won't put dangerous ideas such as Solanas' in practice?

Hatred of any group is dangerous.

And it has effects.

Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, also sees some value in this loose use of "rape." She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. "To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don't care a hoot about him." Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience.

Note that? That's someone in a position of power, who could cause significant harm to male students at Vassar.

Guess what?

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/07/13369/
http://watchdogwire.com/pennsylvania/20 ... r-college/

Not a harmless position for her to take. There are lots of people in positions of power who either hate men or hold a view that is constructed from an ideological foundation built by people who hate men.

People hating men is one of the reasons why we have dysfunctional rape-related policies on college campuses. It's one of the reasons why research on women victimizing men has been obstructed, marginalized, and its impact on policy minimized. It's one of the reasons why we don't have domestic violence shelters helping men. It's one of the reasons why we have sexist policies and practice, in general. It is not harmless to hate men.

Disgusting.

I am really historically skeptical about attitudes that direct asking about issues in feminism when it comes to dealing with the oppressor/privileged group (or people who supposedly belong there, in contrast to their own opinion) in a relatively objectionable way to a blanket "what about the menz?" meme and "I'm offended by your implying that we're not ultimate authority and priority" attitude that seems to associate the barest skepticism to any feminism of any line ever to a misogynistic silencing of all their activism and thus perpetuation of oppression.

Can't say I didn't expect it. The blatant lies of the sex work abolitionist movement also don't help it.

Still, if that's the worst, they're not more messed up than TERFs and much of the MRA movement, for which I'm glad, and also still not more dangerous.

And I don't think dyadic cis hetero men are the most able to deal with this problem of toxic activism, either, even when they're tolerant liberals. As I said previously, "nobody" will really listen. Hell, I was misgendered by intersecs far more than once. Liberal and liberal-intersectional feminist groups that embrace males or affirmatively embrace male allies and can advance men's issues are the ones I could think would be the best to signal boost these problems. Men's liberation movements often are small or even unheard of, and without significant power.

[Tahar Joblis]

I implied women being oppressive in mass against males and masculinity in our society to a point where they are abused and degraded is not going to be a thing.

The CDC estimated that in 2010...

• 2.2% of women and 2.3% of men were subjected to unwanted sexual contact.
• 2.0% of women and 1.5% of men were sexually coerced.
• 1.1% of men were "made to penetrate," and 1.1% of women were "raped." (With the definition of rape used being gender-asymmetric. Most people would identify the "made to penetrate" cases as being as much rape as the "rape" cases. Then, some additional men were also "raped" per the CDC definition, but the CDC's sample was not large enough to produce a good estimate. Likely 0.2% if you used a larger sample with their methodology, for a total of around 1.3-1.4%.)
• 4.0% of women, and 4.7% of men, were physically abused by an intimate partner.

To the degree that you could claim that women are abused and degraded en masse by men as a form of oppression - as Dworkin, MacKinnon, and their more modern fellow travelers are quite fond of doing - the reverse is already clearly true. And the system does not punish female abusers as it does male abusers; meaning that the system is complicit in abuse of men in a way that it is not complicit of abuse of women.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The CDC estimated that in 2010...

• 2.2% of women and 2.3% of men were subjected to unwanted sexual contact.
• 2.0% of women and 1.5% of men were sexually coerced.
• 1.1% of men were "made to penetrate," and 1.1% of women were "raped." (With the definition of rape used being gender-asymmetric. Most people would identify the "made to penetrate" cases as being as much rape as the "rape" cases. Then, some additional men were also "raped" per the CDC definition, but the CDC's sample was not large enough to produce a good estimate. Likely 0.2% if you used a larger sample with their methodology, for a total of around 1.3-1.4%.)
• 4.0% of women, and 4.7% of men, were physically abused by an intimate partner.

To the degree that you could claim that women are abused and degraded en masse by men as a form of oppression - as Dworkin, MacKinnon, and their more modern fellow travelers are quite fond of doing - the reverse is already clearly true. And the system does not punish female abusers as it does male abusers; meaning that the system is complicit in abuse of men in a way that it is not complicit of abuse of women.

I don't agree with the idea of "rape culture" in the way radical feminists use the term, if it wasn't visible by my utter repulse of Andrea Dworkin and the general SWERF/abolitionist community and trouble with interactions with even non-radfem feminists.