Against Feminisms Revisited – Again! @allyfogg ‘s response

Posted: June 11, 2012 in Feminism
Tags: ,

My piece ‘Against Feminisms’ explaining why I think feminism is wrong about pretty much everything, has been one of the most controversial on this blog.

https://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/against-feminisms/#comments

Last night @allyfogg  gave a point by point response. Before I reply I thought the #QRGMassive could take a look and see what they think!

1) Feminism is based on an assumption that overall, men as a group hold power in society and this power, damages women as a group.

No, it doesn’t have to be based on this assumption, although I accept it very often is. Feminism <i>could</i> be based on an assumption that there is structural, systematic discrimination against women of a different nature to structural, systematic discrimination against men.So it could be other social forces holding power, not “men.” Marxists feminists like Lindsey German would probably tell you that the ruling class holds the power, not the male gender. Selma James would probably say it forces of cultural socialisation or something woolly like that.

Anyway, I should point out that even feminists who do believe in simplistic patriarchal theories are not necessarily misandrist. They could like and love men but hate the system that accords gender roles and power (as they see them.)

2) The above assumption, no matter what feminists say, relies on a belief in and a reinforcement of the essentialist binary view of gender (i.e. that male v female men v women masculine v feminine are real and important distinctions. That is how feminists justify their belief that ‘men’ hold power over ‘women’)

It doesn’t rely on it at all. All it requires is a recognition that the dominant society (or a significant part of it) believes in a binary view of gender and acts unjustly upon that belief, false or not. If society were to arbitrarily decide that people whose surname begins in the second half of the alphabet were to be deprived legal and democratic rights, one could point out that it is ridiculous because it is an entirely false premise and social construct, but that wouldn’t make the discrimination any less real or less worthy of challenge – it wouldn’t make it untrue that alpha-mus hold power over nu-omegas in practical terms.

3) e.g. concepts such as ‘rape culture’  and ‘patriarchy’ and ‘violence against women and girls’ and  ‘the male gaze’ and ‘objectification’ rely on making out men are not decent people

No,this is deeply, deeply wrong and, ironically enough, I think you slip into out and out misandry of the type you’re accusing feminism of. Those concepts rely on making out <b>the men who do those things</b> are not decent people. There is no need for it to be generalised to all men, and some feminists are quite good at clarifying that. Also,in this paragraph (also your GMP piece iirc)  it is *you* who is associating rape culture, VAWG etc with masculinity. Fuck off with that Elly, seriously. Rape, harassment, violence, domination are in no way essential to my gender and I spend a considerable chunk of my life trying to detach the associations. Saying campaigns against violence against women are de facto anti-man is saying that violence against women is part of masculinity. I’m not having that. Rape is a crime against a woman and also a crime against masculinity. Same for all the rest of it. Violence, harassment, abusiveness, whatever, is not decent behaviour. The people who do it are not decent people. I have no problem condemning them for it and trying to prevent the behaviour, however I can. That doesn’t make me a self-loathing man-hater.

4) The focus on men’s power over women in ‘patriarchal’ society ignores other divisions between people

That’s not a logical necessity at all. Someone could be primarily engaged with economic class dynamics or race dynamics, see all of their politics through that lens, and yet still identify as feminist by any definition. Most Marxist Feminists and anarcho-feminists would be utterly baffled by this claim. Yes, a lot of feminists do ignore (or downplay) other power dynamics but it is by no means a logical necessity that they do so. Their politics can still be entirely coherent if they do not.

Finally, and as with the last one above your numbers (5) and (6) are commonly true in practice but quite obviously don’t need to be true, politically.

Now after all that I should say, it is a perfectly decent list of reasons as to why you don’t call yourself a feminist. I disagree with some of it but hey ho.

What it does not do is rebut the claims that <i>”‘feminism is not a monolithic group’ ‘there are many branches of feminism’ </i> etc You haven’t done that at all.

Nor, to go back to our Twitter chat earlier tonight, have you demonstrated that feminism is by definition and necessity man-hating and misandrist. Not by a long chalk.

Comments
  1. Jared says:

    “What it does not do is rebut the claims that ”‘feminism is not a monolithic group’ ‘there are many branches of feminism’ etc You haven’t done that at all.”

    I wonder if there are any groups which Ally would class as monolithic?

    With regards to a general willingness to inflict or tolerate male suffering (which feminism/ists engage in primarily through apathy as opposed malice), I would say that yes, feminism is monolithic. There are few who do not engage in such behaviour, and they are usually on the way out. Insofar as a group can only truly considered to be entirely monolithic if it is composed entirely of pod people who have undergone a rigorous and homogenous course of mental programming, I will concede the feminism is not monolithic…. probably.
    🙂

  2. “I wonder if there are any groups which Ally would class as monolithic?”

    Well yes. Any group that is genuinely dogmatic – ie taking beliefs unquestioningly from a single source – could be said to be monolithic.

    So I’d argue that socialism is not monolilthic, but the Socialist Workers Party is. Christianity is not monolithic, but Jehovah’s Witnesses are.

    WIthin feminism, one could argue that a single group with an agreed manifesto (eg Object or Global Women’s Strike) are effectively monolothic, but not the whole movement.

    I think there is a much better argument in the other direction – that feminism is so far from being monolithic, that the range of feminists have so few beliefs in common, that it is questionable whether feminism actually means anything at all, beyond a few generalised platitudes about women’s issues.

    When you’ve got a pile of consumerist, individualist shite like Jezebel declaring itself feminist at one side of the spectrum, and revolutionary deep green anarchists at the other, I’m not at all sure that a single label is in any way meaningful.

    • Jared says:

      Fair enough. I stand by my ‘Common thread’ model but, under the definition you are using (which admittedly requires far fewer qualifiers than my own) feminism is not monolithic.

    • typhonblue says:

      Are there any feminists who believe that men did not oppress women historically and that men were more to blame for how society structured gender? Any feminists who do not cling to greater female victimhood either historically, currently or in cultures other then our own?

  3. Matt Lodder says:

    “commonly true in practice but quite obviously don’t need to be true, politically.”

    Well, exactly, That’s precisely what Elly is arguing. In fact, that’s the entire raison d’etre of most of her criticisms. Feminism doesn’t have to be, and indeed shouldn’t be, the way she identifies it. But it all too often is, as Ally herself acknowledges.

    For all her anti-feminism, Elly supports the (stated, aspirational) goals of many feminist thinkers. She just doesn’t think contemporary feminisms, for all their dogma and hypocrisy and short-sightedness and, yes, misandry, is the best way to achieve those goals.

    • Ally can speak for herself (and doubtless will!) but I don’t think that is her position. I think she argues that feminism must be like this by definition, that it is beyond redemption on this score. In other words, it is not just the application or the practice that is flawed, it is the foundations of the theory.

      That’s the basis of our whole disagreement. We pretty much agree that the application and the practice is often (if not always) pretty poor.

      • I think ‘stated, aspirational’ is key in Matt’s phrase. Do all feminists really want what they say they want, believe what they say they believe? I don’t know anymore because their double speak gets very confusing.

        as I have said before, I love Judith Butler’s work. But reading it, I am surprised in some ways her own ideas did not lead her to reject the feminist label. My slightly cynical conclusion is that even Judith Butler is a ‘career feminist’ to a degree and she would not let go of the thing that keeps her famous and keeps her in academia and … money.

  4. Murphy says:

    1. “Feminism ‘could’ be based on an assumption that there is structural, systematic discrimination against women of a different nature to structural, systematic discrimination against men.”

    I’ve never yet met a feminist who would agree that men face discrimination based on their gender. If they do, they turn it around by saying it’s the patriarchy that’s to blame, or mens ‘expectations’ of other men. If you point out that feminist groups are some of the most vehement defenders of structural discrimination against men (i.e. bias in the family courts to chose one example). I’ve also never met a feminist who believes that women have any advantages due to their gender. Any advantages that you point out (reproductive rights to chose one example) will be quickly redefined as a burden.

    2. “All it requires is a recognition that the dominant society (or a significant part of it) believes in a binary view of gender and acts unjustly upon that belief, false or not.”

    I watched the BBC news at the weekend featuring the massacre at Hama. The same piece was repeated twice. Each time it began: “…100 people were killed, including 30 children and 20 women”. CNN (a) only mentioned the women and children, ignoring the total number.

    This (b) BBC online piece begins: “Syrian pro-government forces have killed 78 people in a single village in Hama province, many of them women and children, activists say.”

    Question: at what point did the deaths of innocent men, become so routine as to not even be worthy of mention?

    Question: if a ‘dominant society’ acts unjustly based on a binary view of gender, which affects both sexes, then is ‘patriarchy’, which implies maleness, the correct term?

    3. “Rape, harassment, violence, domination are in no way essential to my gender and I spend a considerable chunk of my life trying to detach the associations.”

    It’s tempting to suggest here, that Ally’s main opposition to his efforts will come from feminists who do in fact largely place those issues at the door of men. I will however point out that, to chose just one issue – domestic violence – despite a wealth of evidence that both sexes commit DA and DV as frequently as each other (although at the far-most extreme end it’s admittedly mostly men), and that the main influencing factors are family background, addiction, mental illness and not gender, still men are portrayed as the abusers, and that portrayal is largely the responsibility of feminist groups.

    4. “Yes, a lot of feminists do ignore (or downplay) other power dynamics but it is by no means a logical necessity that they do so.”

    True, although identifying as a ‘feminist’ would imply that this dynamic is in some way more critical than other dynamics.

    (a) http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/11/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html
    (b) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18348201

    • “I’ve never yet met a feminist who would agree that men face discrimination based on their gender. If they do, they turn it around by saying it’s the patriarchy that’s to blame, or mens ‘expectations’ of other men.”

      Really? I know plenty, personally and through their books & articles. Susan Faludi wrote a whole book about it. And no, “Stiffed” wasn’t just saying ‘patriarchy is to blame’ although of course that was part of her argument. Mostly it was about capitalist economics.

      There are also plenty of women who identify as feminists who argue those points at great length – the likes of Hoff-Sommers, Weldon, Paglia etc etc etc. Admittedly this is complicated by the fact that some other feminists deny that those women are feminists, but that just underlines my earlier point that feminism is possibly too diverse as an ideology to be meaningful, as opposed to QRG’s claim that it is monolithic.

      Question: at what point did the deaths of innocent men, become so routine as to not even be worthy of mention?

      Ooh, a long, long time ago. Long before feminism, in fact.

      Question: if a ‘dominant society’ acts unjustly based on a binary view of gender, which affects both sexes, then is ‘patriarchy’, which implies maleness, the correct term?

      I’m not a huge fan of the word ‘patriarchy’ in this context myself, but it doesn’t matter. Feminists don’t need to believe that all the world’s problems are caused by patriarchy in order to be feminists. But as it happens even within really simplistic feminist theory it’s perfectly possible to explain male ‘disposability’ within a patriarchal model – the whole protective role thing. I don’t agree with that line, but it is perfectly coherent.

      It’s tempting to suggest here, that Ally’s main opposition to his efforts will come from feminists who do in fact largely place those issues at the door of men.

      Oh it does, believe me, it does.

      I will however point out that, to chose just one issue – domestic violence – despite a wealth of evidence that both sexes commit DA and DV as frequently as each other (although at the far-most extreme end it’s admittedly mostly men), and that the main influencing factors are family background, addiction, mental illness and not gender, still men are portrayed as the abusers, and that portrayal is largely the responsibility of feminist groups.

      This is absolutely true in practice and I’ve written about it myself often. But it is a failure in the application of feminism, it’s not a fatal flaw in the theory. There’s absolutely no need for feminism to deny male victimisation or female perpetration, and again there are many feminists who do not (albeit not enough, IMO). Again, some of the most groundbreaking work on this front has been produced by women who identify as feminists – Erin Pizzey, Suzanne Steinmetz, Nicky Graham-Kevan, Linda G Mills etc etc etc

      True, although identifying as a ‘feminist’ would imply that this dynamic is in some way more critical than other dynamics.

      No, I don’t think that’s necessarily true at all. As I said earlier, if you’re a Marxist-feminist, for example, you’re likely to see class as the dominant dynamic rather than gender. The ‘feminist’ bit just says you have a particular interest in how that dynamic affects women.

      • Stiffed is a rip off of Mark Simpson’s work. She said she was his ‘biggest fan’ but did not reference him once.

      • Danny says:

        This is absolutely true in practice and I’ve written about it myself often. But it is a failure in the application of feminism, it’s not a fatal flaw in the theory.
        Even if that is the true that failure in application is extremely wide spread. Wide spread to the point that often the first (and sometimes only) response to male victimization is “but its usually at the hands of other men”.

        Again, some of the most groundbreaking work on this front has been produced by women who identify as feminists – Erin Pizzey, Suzanne Steinmetz, Nicky Graham-Kevan, Linda G Mills etc etc etc
        I can’t speak on the others in that list but I know that the ground breaking tha Pizzey did did not go over well with feminists.

      • BASTA! says:

        Question: at what point did the deaths of innocent men, become so routine as to not even be worthy of mention?

        Ooh, a long, long time ago. Long before feminism, in fact.

        That’s “your honor, I didn’t invent theft, therefore I am innocent of theft”.

    • BASTA! says:

      Re the Hama massacre, I noticed the same thing, and this was the first time I wasn’t the first to note the erasure of male victims in the comments under the news pieces. Something has changed in 2012 in Poland.

  5. re: feminism being monolothic being disproved.

    I don’t think the marginal voices such as Hoff-Summers or Paglia prove that feminism is not monolithic. Paglia has been sidelined, for example in gender studies, she does not have a proper academic job. Because ? well we can’t prove it but my experience of gender studies in UK universities anyway is that they don’t let many viewpoints in! I would call that ‘monolithic’. It is not a coincidence in my view that I did not drop feminism till after I left gender studies academia.

    I also think that it is very difficult for educated women interested in gender to ditch feminism completely. Look what has happened to me, having done that. I have been ostracised, blocked online, banned from blogs and outed by a feminist journalist and her sidekick. I think people find it hard to go against such a strong cultural force that dominates women’s lives, especially middle class women.

    and Ally says feminism can’t be defined. well I just defined it in 6 bullet points which I stand by! There are supposedly different strands. Historically the main ones have been liberal/Marxist/radical feminism. But in my experience these all overlap. For example liberal feminists such as amanda Marcotte and Suzanne Moore still draw on ‘radical feminist’ dogma over issues of e.g. sex, sex work, reproductive rights, men being bastards. And Marxist feminists have helped create this notion that women are a separate ‘class’ of people, oppressed by the ruling ‘class’ of men, that all strands of feminists use at some point or other.

    I agree with Murphy. Feminist women rarely bring up men as ‘victims’. Faludi was trying to be clever and follow up Backlash with something risque. as I said above she stole Mark Simpson’s work in that book as did Susan Bordo in her book The Male Body (2000). why? Because a) they didn’t want to admit a man got there first b) he’s not famous or an academic so they could get away with it c)they are ruthless as most ‘career feminists’ are.

    • “I don’t think the marginal voices such as Hoff-Summers or Paglia prove that feminism is not monolithic.”

      They don’t. But if Hoff-Sommers or Paglia are added to a pool that also includes everyone from the Vagenda kids to Starhawk, Faludi to Bindel, Eve Libertine to bel hooks, Butler, Selma James, Nina Power, etc etc etc it becomes very difficult to say what are the unifying threads to feminism beyond a concern with the status and welfare of women. Yes, women, but not necessarily to the exclusion of other issues too.

      “I also think that it is very difficult for educated women interested in gender to ditch feminism completely.”

      Oh I don’t doubt that for a moment. There’s something approaching a feminist mafia at work in parts of academia it seems, and I’ve seen plenty of examples of people being excluded and discriminated against for not following the correct feminist line (including some self-identifying feminists). But again, that is a problem with the application of feminism, it is not inherent or essential to feminism. If it all stopped tomorrow feminism would not disappear in a puff of logic. One can be a feminist and not support that type of thought police stuff.

      “Feminist women rarely bring up men as ‘victims’

      Well of course. Feminism is a concern with women’s rights and welfare. If it weren’t, it would be called humanitarianism or something. So it is hardly surprising that feminists rarely bring up men as victims, that’s not what it is about. That’s not the same as saying that all feminists deny men can be victims, which would be a different claim.

      “Faludi was trying to be clever and follow up Backlash with something risque. as I said above she stole Mark Simpson’s work in that book as did Susan Bordo in her book The Male Body (2000). why? Because a) they didn’t want to admit a man got there first b) he’s not famous or an academic so they could get away with it c)they are ruthless as most ‘career feminists’ are.”

      Whether or not Faludi ripped off Mark is beside the point. Whether she credited him or not is beside the point. If you think Mark Simpson is right about this stuff, and think that Faludi has written a book replicating his ideas, then quite clearly you are accepting that one of the world’s most respected and influential feminists wrote a major work containing the precise ideas which you say feminism cannot accept!

      • I haven’t read Stiffed so I can’t comment. I have heard Mark’s version of events, I have read a small extract. and I have read The Male Body by Bordo which simultaneously steals and twists Simpson’s ideas to make them safe for a ‘feminist’ audience.

        as I say in my review of Male Impersonators.

        It is not beside the point. and stealing people’s ideas, original theorist’s, is important.

        • oh and I have read Backlash which I now think is shit.

          • The other person who did this with Simpson’s work was Marian Salzman. She made metrosexuality safe for an American audience. She turned metrosexuals into heterosexual macho men who just like to look good to impress the ladies.

        • “I haven’t read Stiffed so I can’t comment. I have heard Mark’s version of events, I have read a small extract. and I have read The Male Body by Bordo which simultaneously steals and twists Simpson’s ideas to make them safe for a ‘feminist’ audience.”

          I flicked through it again the other day looking for something, and I’d say there are two chapters out of a hefty 700 page book that is very much in Mark Simpson territory. A lot of it is probably complementary but coming from a very different perspective.

      • Schala says:

        “Well of course. Feminism is a concern with women’s rights and welfare. If it weren’t, it would be called humanitarianism or something. So it is hardly surprising that feminists rarely bring up men as victims, that’s not what it is about. That’s not the same as saying that all feminists deny men can be victims, which would be a different claim. ”

        What would you say to those who believe that feminism is about equality, that masculinism is about giving the right of men to rape women without being unlawful, or about abandoning children financially. That men have equal rights AND more, they need no men’s shelters, lest they start them themselves, using their own money (not the government’s, that’s for women’s shelters), that the Duluth model is all fine and good, that the pay gap REALLY is 77% on the dollar for the same work…and that men fail graduating secondary and tertiary education because they’re just genetically stupid or intentionally lazy?

        Also the mention that “male privilege” exists, makes someone basically an asshole that interrupts everyone (but especially women, just to be an ass about it) and has a boner for every power trip, especially those that keep women down. That this makes him want to perpetrate Old Man’s Clubs that exclude women based on perceived inferiority. Oh and female privilege doesn’t exist, and sexism against men and misandry are jokes invented by MRAs to troll feminists…So says Finally Feminism 101 for the last bit.

      • Danny says:

        Well of course. Feminism is a concern with women’s rights and welfare. If it weren’t, it would be called humanitarianism or something. So it is hardly surprising that feminists rarely bring up men as victims, that’s not what it is about. That’s not the same as saying that all feminists deny men can be victims, which would be a different claim.
        Well I’ve been told by plenty of feminists that feminism’s concern is for all people with no differentiation of who is of primary concern.

      • Henry says:

        “Oh I don’t doubt that for a moment. There’s something approaching a feminist mafia at work in parts of academia it seems, and I’ve seen plenty of examples of people being excluded and discriminated against for not following the correct feminist line (including some self-identifying feminists)”

        I agree with that, and it’s not just in gender studies by any means. Again it’s not monolithic in intellectual terms, but there’s an unspoken agreement and pressure between many women in academia. Not all women share it to the same degree, but many feel pressured by (and sometimes resentful of) the one’s shouting loudest. The most political women will seek out positions of influence and exert power from there. Academia is being politicized – fatally so.

        There’s a supposed rationale underpinning this – men are held to dominate academia and everything else, so it is then tacitly assumed that women need to work together against them.

        This is nonsense, but believed. Just one of the reasons why it is nonsense is this assumption that a clever woman must work twice as hard to be recognized in academia. This may once have true but I think that exactly the opposite may be the case now in some areas.

        And I’m afraid there are bound to be some women in academia who simply aren’t quite as good as the males they compete against (or who don’t get on with their colleagues), who initially do less well, and who blame “discrimination”. And well we know who will be encouraging them to say this.

        Then there’s the usual baloney about the patriarchy and stuff about “stereotypes limiting girl’s life choices”. Lot’s of unproven stuff bandied around as incontrovertible fact

    • Henry says:

      Wow, missed all this good stuff.

      Sort of with Ally Fogg on this one. I don’t think we can possibly use the word ‘monolithic’ to describe feminism’s intellectual basis (if it has one at all, which I would dispute). Though it certainly feels very ‘monolithic’ when you go up against feminists – they tend to pull together with a bit of a seige/mutual support mentality.

      Having said that – your bullet points are good because they crystallize much of what feminists do claim, and does form a central part of the thinking. One sad problem is that once you’ve cornered them and say “OK, you agree that you’ve said that the patriarchy oppresses women”, feminists will like as not deny everything, move the goalposts, and rearrange their argument to suit the moment

      They don’t really want to be limited by what they said yesterday🙂

  6. elissa says:

    Some evidence on how theory and corresponding practice cannot be simply brushed aside in the name of factional interpretations. This is feminism in practice.

    http://www.theduluthmodel.org/about/faqs.html#women. From the FAQ of the Duluth model for domestic violence – spot the children of feminist dogma if you can!!

    “Do women use violence as often as men in intimate relationships?

    When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence. Men’s use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural and institutional experiences. Women’s use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women. Battering in same-sex intimate relationships has many of the same characteristics of battering in heterosexual relationships, but happens within the context of the larger societal oppression of same-sex couples. “

    • On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.

      wow.

      • Titfortat says:

        Lmao, not too much bias happening over at the Duluth model.😉
        The only difference with a punch in the face is the size of the fist. I know some women who have pretty big hands.🙂

    • “This is feminism in practice.”

      Yes it is and it sucks big time, have been saying the same for years. But it is not true that the totality of feminist theory depends on ideas like that, and that’s the point I’m making here. .

      • show me a feminist theorist who does not prioritise violence against women over violence against men. and don’t say Susan Faludi because she is just flim flam.

        • Susan Faludi agrees with you Ally. surprise surprise!

          From wikipedia:

          Faludi has rejected the claim advanced by critics that there is a “rigid, monolithic feminist orthodoxy”, noting in response that she has disagreed with Gloria Steinem about pornography and Naomi Wolf about abortion.[8]

        • “show me a feminist theorist who does not prioritise violence against women over violence against men”

          Well if it doesn’t prioritise women it is not feminism. That’s one thing there is no dispute about, feminism is about women. If it weren’t it would be something else.

          The significant question (to the point I’ve been making here( is that it is not a zero-sum game. It is not true that working for the interests of women is necessarily the same as working against the interests of men. You can be concerned about both.

          • ah so you can be a feminist AND one of those feminist women who also often writes carefully and accurately about men and their problems.

            I can’t think of any either. I will read Stiffed but I think it was all about Faludi not about men.

          • Jared says:

            But this prioritisation is where the harm comes in. Take a feminist DV campaign, in “prioritisation of women” it will depict only (or a very large majority) of women being abused by men. To do otherwise would make is not a feminist campaign as it would not be prioritising women (that is if I am reading you right). In doing so it demonises men as the abuser sex, which is a big problem.

            It isn’t man hate which is monolithic through feminism; it is man indifference. Man indifference created by the monolithic prioritisation of women, which stems from a monolithic belief that now and historically women’s suffering due to sexism has meaningfully eclipsed men’s.

            This isn’t a complaint about the loss of “unearned privilege”, or an assertion that in taking men’s unearned privileges while retaining women’s feminism has “tipped the balance”. What I am saying is that in viewing women as the oppressed group feminism “feels” justified in its infliction of collateral damage on the “oppressors”.

            In other news, feminist indifference to male suffering courtesy of feministe, http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/06/10/all-hail-the-matriarchy-and-a-note-to-the-dudebros/

            (No I do not think that this ‘Proves my point’, merely illustrates it nicely🙂 )

          • Danny says:

            Well if it doesn’t prioritise women it is not feminism. That’s one thing there is no dispute about, feminism is about women. If it weren’t it would be something else.
            So why would members of a movement that prioritizes women say that men need to align with it because it’s the movement for equality for all people. I perfectly understand that most advocates are going to pick their battles (as in prioritize certain issues over others). But its a bit bothersome to simultaneously that feminism prioritizes women and that its the movement for all people and that everyone is of equal concern.

          • BASTA! says:

            The “zero-sum game”, and the “sum of the game” in general, are precise mathematical terms. In particular, “sum of the game” is a quantity that can be computed from the game’s rules, provided these rules are well defined. Needless to say, the computed value of the game’s sum only applies to a particular game of the game if the rules of the game are obeyed during that particular game.

            This is never the case with feminism, because feminists always cheat.

  7. writes or campaigns, or talks, or anything!

    • Doris Lessing and Fay Weldon both wrote extensively on men’s issues in later life. Erica Jong wrote a book about men (can’t remember the title now) – even Betty Friedan’s Second Stage had a lot about men’s issues and took other feminists to task for ignoring them.

      But the problem is (as with your post about Judith Butler above) you keep playing the No True Scotsman trick.

      No True Feminist would think or write XYZ, therefore if a feminist has written XYZ she’s not really a feminist.

      Therefore you can stick to your original post as a list of central tenets of feminism, and hold that line however many counter-examples are thrown at you.

      Oh, and BTW I agree with you about Backlash. There’s a lot of crap in it alongside some good points. There’s a bit of crap in Stiffed too, but not as much.

      • No I am not doing the ‘no true scotsman’.

        I agree Judith Butler IS a feminist. I am saying I am surprised she is as I have read her work and I think it challenges the basis of feminism, which, as my original post says, includes a belief that ‘women’ have it harder than ‘men’ in society and that this should be campaigned about.

        if there is a feminist that does not believe that I am yet to meet her. Oh. I was her. and look what happened to me.

  8. I find it hard to believe that you really truly believe that feminists care about men as much as women, when they are not doing their feminist thing. They are full-time these people! I was.

  9. “I find it hard to believe that you really truly believe that feminists care about men as much as women, when they are not doing their feminist thing. They are full-time these people!”

    You keep moving the goalposts. I’m not saying feminists care as much about men. Some might, but most probably don’t. So what? It’s feminism’s job to care about women. Why shouldn’t it?

  10. I will write a response post in a day or two.

  11. yeah, it’s a bait and switch move used by bigots like Marcotte and Futrelle to say that if you don’t agree with feminism, you are a misogynist, then call those who dare mention men’s issues bitter, small d*cked MRA’s who can’t get laid. If it was a humanitarian cause then it would be egalitarian. If it focuses on women’s issues first and openly acknowledges that, then I am not a bigot if I say as a man, I have to work on my own issues first and not care about feminism….

    again, I wouldn’t care so much if more feminist’s openly stated women’s issues first and didn’t deride those who focused on men’s issues. However, it seems like the bigots like Marcotte have been successful in the bait and switch in mainstream culture….

    really, I’m just asking for some transparency here….

    • I mostly agree with that, Stoner, Especially this bit:

      “I wouldn’t care so much if more feminist’s openly stated women’s issues first and didn’t deride those who focused on men’s issues.”.

      I think that is the way forward.

      I’m not a fan of Marcotte, to say the least. Have big problems with a lot of her work, which does come across as bitter and bigoted.

      Have more symptathy for David Futrelle. I can’t think of any man he has mocked or criticised on Manboobz who didn’t deserve it, and I think the misogynist lunacy around the MRA & anti-feminist sites does need challenging and mocking.

      Feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary if you disagree.

      In general terms, I’ve seen both sides of this, as someone who has written extensively about men’s issues over the years. Yes, there are some feminists who attempt to shout down or mock what I say, and who are downright hostile to the very idea of men’s issues. But I’d say it is a substantial minority, no more than that. A large proportion of feminists are quite welcoming to my ideas.

      Now QRG or others might say that is because I try to accommodate feminism, suck up to feminists or whatever. That’s how she sees it. But it is not how I see it. To me it is just calling the problems as I see them and recognising solutions where I can, and caring about people / problems because the’re deserving of concern, not because they affect my team or the other team.

      I’d happily adapt your quote and embroider it into a flag:

      “It is fine for feminism to campaign for women’s issues first, so long as they don’t deride those who focus on men’s issues”

      But then I’d want another flag next to it that says:

      “It is fine for men’s activists to focus on men’s issues first, so long as they don’t deride those who focus on women’s issues.”

      I got a hilarious couple of tweets overnight from someone I don’t know:

      “It sounds to me that you’ve mixed up what feminism and the MRM are. Feminism is an ideology of hatred against men to create female privilege. The MRM is a non-violent human-rights movement to address necessary issues to bring us closer to egalitarianism.”

      Hilarious? Because the exact same thing could have come from Amanda Marcotte or someone:

      “The MRM is an ideology of hatred against women to defend male privilege. Feminism is a non-violent human-rights movement to address necessary issues to bring us closer to egalitarianism.”

      So long as feminists and men’s activists paint themselves as angels and the other side as demons then we’re going to fall into the trap of fighting the other team instead of fighting injustice, which I believe is what we should be doing.

      • Will just add, re:Futrelle, I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with someone doing a Femboobz site that mocked and held to account some of the misandry, bigotry and idiocy that circulates on the feminist / women’s / mums blogosphere. In fact it would be a very good idea.

        Those people should be held to account too.

        • I think that’s called QRG

        • Danny says:

          A site that is close to that idea would be Feminist Critics. Oddly enough most feminists claim that the site is unfair to feminists despite ballgame and daran going out of their way to give feminists a chance to speak up.

        • redpesto says:

          Will just add, re:Futrelle, I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with someone doing a Femboobz site that mocked and held to account some of the misandry, bigotry and idiocy that circulates on the feminist / women’s / mums blogosphere. In fact it would be a very good idea.

          …and it would last about 30 seconds before the accusations of misogyny kicked in. Ally, you’ve seen what happens when that’s tried over at CiF or the Women’s Blog (to both above and below the line contributors), so what makes you think it would be taken in a spirit of satirical criticism? The days of ‘Letters from a Fainthearted Feminist’ or Bel Littlejohn seem long since past (and any parody of Julie Bindel would fall foul of Poe’s Law).

          Mind you Diary of a Mumsy Cupcake Feminist has a nice ring to it…

      • Titfortat says:

        Feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary if you disagree.(Ally)

        I think one of the issue’s with Futrelle, and this may or may not be intentional, is that he takes looney toon individuals and subtley implies that this is what all mra’s look like. His site discredits most of the men’s movement in one fell swoop. Any time a legitimate individual(male or female) points out something awry on that site they are instantly labelled a misogynist and poof no one listens to them.

        • Danny says:

          That is certainly a failing of that site. Supposedly their purpose is to mock the misogyny of MRAs but I saw a while back that its more than that.

          In their forums some time back they were running some sort of challenge about finding an MRA that has some done act of merit. Someone mentioned Glen Sacks. Now I remember not too long ago when Sacks had his own blog (before throwing his lot in with Fathers and Families) and he was trashed as an MRA along with other MRAs. So how did they respond to his mention now? Oh all of a sudden no one knows if he identifies as MRA or not.

          They aren’t looking to give the MRM a kick in the pants they are just looking for a fight.

          • QRG says:

            and the irony is, it is quite ‘macho’ posturing. which feminists are supposed to be against.

          • Thomas says:

            “In their forums some time back they were running some sort of challenge about finding an MRA that has some done act of merit.”

            I remember that challenge, too. The rules were ridiculous. Basically it was “we are looking for reasonable MRAs and by reasonable we mean MRAs who call themselves MRAs but fully subscribe to the feminist ideology”. Surprisingly they didn’t find any.

            Every time someone made a recommendation the regular commenters would comb through the archive of the blog in search of problematic content. Apropos problematic, this very problematic tumblr comes scarily close to the attitude of far too many online feminists: http://isthisfeminist.tumblr.com/

      • Danny says:

        Have more symptathy for David Futrelle. I can’t think of any man he has mocked or criticised on Manboobz who didn’t deserve it, and I think the misogynist lunacy around the MRA & anti-feminist sites does need challenging and mocking.

        Feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary if you disagree.
        The problem isn’t that he points out nasty MRAs. The problem is that he conveniently has no problem with those nasties being propped up as representation of the entire movement. But that’s only a minor quibble at best. Moreso his fan base seems to have largely comprised of feminists who enjoy what he does to MRAs but then scream the bloodiest of murder when someone does it the same to feminists (Feminist Critics for example). If they want to eliminate the nastiness for the sake of all people then they are going to have to get used to the fact that its not just MRAs with skeletons in the closet.

        But I’d say it is a substantial minority, no more than that. A large proportion of feminists are quite welcoming to my ideas.
        However that minority is quite vocal. And some of their bad ideas are quite readily accepted with little question or challenge.

      • Thomas says:

        “Have more symptathy for David Futrelle. I can’t think of any man he has mocked or criticised on Manboobz who didn’t deserve it, and I think the misogynist lunacy around the MRA & anti-feminist sites does need challenging and mocking. “

        Most deserve it, but what’s the point? To show that there are stupid people on the internet. That’s not exactly news. Futrelle also almost always goes for the low hanging fruits, the easy targets. In my experience he tends to be wrong if he deviates from his pattern of mocking boderline insane MRAs.

        I also think he’s a bit of an opportunist. After Professor Schwyzer became a persona non grata in the feminist blogosphere Futrelle suddenly decided to mock a post from Schwyzer. It was the piece about why men supposedly like to jizz on women’s faces. Personally I think Schwyzer’s post was worthy of mockery or at least criticism. (A typical Schwyzer piece, BTW.) But without the negative momentum Futrulle wouldn’t have gone after Schwyzer.

      • HidingFromtheDinosaurs says:

        Did I imagine Futrelle mocking men who use sex toys, or does that constitute “deserving it”?
        I do not see him producing reasoned or mature critiques or attacking people based on their positions or arguments, I see him slinging petty insults and employing shaming tactics, often sexual in nature better suited to a playground brawl than to any adult conversation. He is, in my opinion, working to silence opposition rather than to engage in discourse. Futrelle is an overeager bully with no sense of restraint, decorum or professionalism who is merely taking advantage of the current social climate to exercise his acceptable prejudice.

        An equivalent site targeting women would not be a reasoned critique of their bigotry or an analysis of flaws in their arguments, it would be a blog which called them all fat, ugly sluts and received no negative social consequences for doing so. Would you really be okay with that? Because I wouldn’t be, and I would not countenance a movement which condoned or enabled such practices any more than I am willing to accept those who support and enable Manboobz.

        I would be perfectly willing to accept feminists and MRAs agreeing to coexist, each focusing on their own set of issues, as long as both are willing to agree that legal issues such as the treatment of rape and domestic violence require strong, gender neutral laws offering due protection to both accused and accuser. However, I do not see the rhetoric of organized western feminism making any allowances for such a compromise. They might occasionally claim to only deal with women’s when backed into a corner, but when they speak from a position of strength they routinely present themselves as the one true movement for equality and have a history of actively working to prevent the construction of parallel organizations, lobbies and resources to deal with men’s issues.

        If the group of feminists doing these things and responsible for negative perceptions of the movements in general truly is as small a minority as you say, I must conclude that they are:

        a) Incompetent. They do not control any of the major feminist organizations capable of shaping policy, nor do they appear to find significant representation in protest action which garners media attention. If they number as many as you say, they are being consistently outflanked by a far smaller force.

        b) Indolent. I have been assigned a great deal of feminist writing in a variety of fields as part of my education, and I have sought out a good deal more besides. All of the pieces which are not filled with bigotry and poor scholarship date to before my birth and were the products of writers and factions most contemporary feminists pretend did not exist.

        c) Horrifically poor at public relations. How is it that the supposed majority is so consistently drowned out by comparatively small groups of ideologues? If there are so many of them, why don’t I hear their voices in major feminist spaces? Why don’t I see them or their work in schools or on television? If they have so many non-bigots just lying around, how can they have failed so atrociously to market themselves?

        At the intersection of all three of these points is the simple fact that no one ever sees these ‘good’ feminists calling the bigots out on their prejudice. Even if the bigots are more zealous, if they are as small a minority as you say, it should be an easy task for the others to overwhelm them. This is a conflict of words and ideas, so if they aren’t speaking out, they effectively do not exist. If they do exist but remain silent to the bigotry and harm perpetrated in their name, then they are giving their tacit consent and support to bigotry. It is all well and good to say that you, personally, know feminists who are not bigots and are willing to acknowledge men’s issues. I do too, but they are a minority under constant and vicious attack from their ‘sisters’. Show me these people. Show me what they produce, what they do, why they matter.

  12. re: the need for people to criticise feminism online.

    apart from what I said – I DO THAT! – I agree with redpesto. Actual serious ‘feminist critics’ just get abuse and are banned/blocked/derided.

    see what happened to girl writes what: http://deanesmay.com/2012/05/22/women-standing-up-for-what-they-believe-in/

    This is where the relationship between theory and practice is key. It is impossible to have a rational debate about the details of feminist theory/positions if you are being screamed at and called an uncle tom, penis-wielder, traitor, bitch, sick, mad, bad, ‘rapist’ etc etc.

    why do feminists disintegrate into nastiness and censorship when their arguments are challenged?

    • “why do feminists disintegrate into nastiness and censorship when their arguments are challenged?”

      Because they are human and just as likely to be complete dicks as the rest of us?

      If you get into any sort of political argument about anything under the sun, it is quite likely you will find yourself abused, insulted and trolled by people from the other side. Because people get defensive about their beliefs and take things personally and sometimes react badly, sometimes react downright crazily.

      Feminists are not above that or immune to that and I don’t see why anyone should expect them to be so.

      • QRG says:

        oh ally. come on. This is actual across the board feminist tactics. I NEVER ban people from my blog the only time I did was when someone impersonated other people and I let him back. Whereas at No Seriously What About Teh Menz I am STILL banned after a row ages ago. Your big pal Ozy has NO forgiveness. WHy? because feminism maybe.

      • redpesto says:

        Feminists are not above that or immune to that and I don’t see why anyone should expect them to be so.

        I don’t either – but in my more bad-tempered moments I fear that too many feminists like to think no-one within the movement ever behaves like a ‘complete dick’ when challenged because that’s ‘what men do’.

      • Danny says:

        Feminists are not above that or immune to that and I don’t see why anyone should expect them to be so.
        Because of regular claims from among themselves that they don’t do that. I can’t count how many times I’ve told about the negativity I’ve experiences from feminists just to have a feminists go straight to claiming that my argument is a straw man because feminists don’t do that.

        If they want to be treated as human they need to quit acting like they are superhuman. Or at least quit acting like they are not a monolith under any circumstances except for positive generalizations or a sweeping generalization that there are no negative elements in feminism.

  13. Ah… I don’t think that’s quite the same thing though is it? I agree that the vast majority of feminist sites have a very low tolerance for criticism and disagreement on their own blogs and sites. It’s not good and it’s not healthy and I suspect it is a remnant of the ‘safe spaces’ bollocks that has been a curse on feminism for a long time. They do like their echo chambers do feminists.

    But I think banning people from one’s own site is a perfectly legitimate thing to do (whether or not it is a good idea.) If it’s your space it’s your rules. it is not the same thing as running harassment and stalking campaigns of the type Dean describes in that blog aimed at you and Girl Writes What.

    That type of behaviour is entirely unacceptable from anyone but I don’t think feminists are more guilty of it than anyone else.

    • NSWATM is not a personal blog it is a joint blog now hosted by The Good men Project, which I write for. It is pathetic that I am banned.

      • I’m confused. Are you banned from commenting on GMP or just Ozy’s bit of it? I thought she said on Twitter that she couldn’t ban you now, because she doesn’t control moderation?

        • I am just banned from the NSWATM section. she can’t ban me physically because it is the GMP blog – to block me and my details would mean I couldn’t comment at GMP at all. But she can refuse to publish all my comments.

          • Danny says:

            Just a chime in from a third party. Ozy has specifically stated that people who were banned before the merger would still be banned and their comments would vanish.

    • HidingFromtheDinosaurs says:

      This behavior is the standard among feminists who write professionally. I expect professionalism from professionals. I expect academics to adhere to proper standards of courtesy and formal argument. I expect journalists to adhere to facts. I expect all of these people to deal with even the most juvenile or hateful criticism in a respectful and adult manner. I expect this of them because it is part of their job and their responsibility. I also expect anyone who seeks to claim the moral or intellectual high ground to meet a higher standard in their conduct than those who do not.

      The vast majority of professional feminists have consistently failed to meet these standards. They and their organizations are plagued by a long history of corrupt research and misleading analysis. Academics who speak out against the dominant feminist dogma, even in the most civil, professional, and reasoned of terms, have a history of being subsequently denied funding for their research and publication for their papers. It is not only blog posts and comments from anonymous critics that go unanswered, it is books, essays and peer-reviewed research from respected professionals with credentials and histories in their fields. The treatment experienced by those who speak out against feminist dogma is wholly unlike that experienced by those who espouse other ideological positions, even fairly controversial ones.

      They are, in point of fact, more guilty of this than other groups at this time. Even if they were not, it is not a behavior to be tolerated or excused in those who lay claim to any degree of legitimacy.

  14. QRG says:

    Ally said in his response post above:

    Finally, and as with the last one above your numbers (5) and (6) are commonly true in practice but quite obviously don’t need to be true, politically.

    My view is that they need to be true pragmatically for feminism to maintain its dominance in our culture.

    I think this is a very important part of our discussion. And may be the key to where we differ. Ally seems to think feminists are ‘just people’ and just react in the range of ways people do to life/conflict/disagreement.

    I don’t think that. I think feminism demands its members to behave in particular ways to have a particular approach to dissent.

    hence my 101 wankers post of people who block me online, most of whom are feminists.

    • “My view is that they need to be true pragmatically for feminism to maintain its dominance in our culture

      But that assumes that attaining or maintaining dominance in our culture is a key goal of feminism. That’s not necessarily true and a lot of feminists would strongly dispute it.

      What I would argue is that feminism is a powerful force in our culture, it certainly dominates gender-related debate, has some dominance in a few areas (eg academic humanities, domestic violence charities) but is nowhere near being *the* dominant theory. That would go to neoliberal capitalism, with militarism behind that, religion behind that etc etc. Feminism is just one of a large numbers of competing ideologies within the rest of society.

      I think feminism demands its members to behave in particular ways to have a particular approach to dissent.

      We do disagree on that. I think there’s a lot of groupthink around feminism, and an awful lot of in-group psychology at play, but I think what you say is an overstatement.

      • thats because you are reasonable and measured and I am petty and bitter and over the top.

        Everyone knows that. But I think I am right and that you don’t have a coherent position. and I meant feminism is dominant as a gendered perspective in our culture. Not that it trumps all forms of power.

  15. KJB says:

    Ally Fogg – Thank you for your excellent points! I don’t take the ‘feminist’ label any longer (not for the same reasons as QRG), but even when I did, none of these nonsensical assertions that QRG pretty much always makes about feminism were true for me. I find her posts interesting when she isn’t being bitter and petty, but there’s been a lot of waah recently. Thanks for changing it up a bit and making space for those of us bored with the waahgenda and feminist/MRA-related squabbling!

  16. QRG says:

    and I am sure your reasons for disliking feminism are far superior to mine. You are all round a better person I can tell!

  17. “Have more symptathy for David Futrelle. I can’t think of any man he has mocked or criticised on Manboobz who didn’t deserve it, and I think the misogynist lunacy around the MRA & anti-feminist sites does need challenging and mocking.

    Feel free to point me to evidence to the contrary if you disagree.”

    He will often quote part of something someone said then put his own words behind it to change what they were saying then have a flashing “sarcasm” button for “plausible deniability.”

    He called Nice Guys ™ Sociopath’s–well the whole Nice guy meme just seems to be bullying men with poor social skills. Surprising that a movement that claims to want less restricted gender roles punishes men so harshly who don’t fit traditional values of masculinity.

    here’s my write up–

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/arguing-with-david-futrelle/

    note the comments by Alek Novy-he’s also witnessed David’s “tactics in action.”

    • I think that’s a pretty interesting discussion between the two of you. You make good points but I don’t think Futrelle is especially unreasonable. I can accept that his post was a bit misjudged in tone, I always think analogies to mental health conditions are deeply problematic. But I agree with Futrelle that there is a distinct community of (capitalised) Nice Guys who really are nothing of the sort. It’s not about socially awkward guys, it is about a particular strand of deeply misogynistic socially awkward guys.

  18. pt. 2….

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/more-manboobz-misandry/

    again, a big part of why he doesn’t get called out on his schickt is because misandry is so prevalent in common culture. He can make fun of men who use sex toys with impunity, but if he made fun of the “empowered” Jezzabellers with their vibrators, he’d be “thrown out of feminism” quicker than a Hugo Schwyzer….

    I could do a 3, 4 and 5 but hopefully you see a few points even if not fully agreeing with him….

    • Nope, can’t really get too outraged about that either, sorry. Just a wanker joke. Yes, if you squint a bit you can see double-standards, in that he probably wouldn’t mock a sex toy for women, but can’t say it convinces me that he is some sort of self-loathing man-hating feminist.

  19. I’d happily adapt your quote and embroider it into a flag:

    “It is fine for feminism to campaign for women’s issues first, so long as they don’t deride those who focus on men’s issues”

    But then I’d want another flag next to it that says:

    “It is fine for men’s activists to focus on men’s issues first, so long as they don’t deride those who focus on women’s issues.”

    Very reasonable, however at this point, I both the MRA’s and the current crop of prominent feminists are at the epic fail point….

    https://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/niether-a-feminist-nor-an-mra-ever-shall-i-be/

    • “both the MRA’s and the current crop of prominent feminists are at the epic fail point….”

      Quite agree. But I don’t think either should be considered beyond redemption. I don’t identify as either a feminist or a men’s activist because I’m a lousy team player and can’t be arsed having to justify a label to anyone – but that doesn’t mean I think either is without merit or there’s not a need for both.

  20. oh, and Quiet Riot Girl, my apologies if it is bad form to drop 3 links back to my blog in 3 comments in a row….

  21. Ally,

    Here’s more….

    http://manboobz.com/2012/06/01/mras-would-rather-complain-about-male-disposibility-than-work-to-enable-women-to-serve-in-combat/

    He refuses to see that sending a man to war for a cause he doesn’t believe in is a human rights violation. There was a draft in the U.S. until just 30-40 years ago and since there is a Selective Service, it could come back.

    While that may be a legitimate “woman’s rights” issue that women aren’t allowed to serve in combat–and with today’s wars, “frontline” is increasingly a meaningless term. However, there has to be a blindness towards “male suffering” to ignore the other point….

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/end-selective-service-now-reprint/

    • typhonblue says:

      MRAs prefer to complain rather then do something? Frutrelle certainly has them pegged.

      In other news the poor refuse to get jobs that pay well enough to get out of poverty. If they really were legitimately upset about being poor you’d think that’d be the first thing they’d do!

      • QRG says:

        I agree typhon and that point is actually ‘taboo’. Where in polite circles can you suggest that a bunch of (often) white middle class men are hard done by and oppressed without being laughed out of said circles?

  22. anyways it takes the same kind of mentality to not call out the old Hillary Clinton Quote which I know I have discussed with Quiet Riot Girl before on this blog….

    http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/famous-hillary-clinton-quote/

  23. The moral godless says:

    Re: “Feminism is not a monolithic group.”

    I agree that feminism is not a monolith. However, the unwillingness of many Feminists to present a consistent definition of Feminism, and the tendency of Feminist apologists to wave off any bad outcome of Feminism, or bigoted Feminist, as “not Feminism/not a Feminist” renders it impossible to have a constructive discussion about it.

    In my time arguing with Feminists, I’ve noticed the above is a very common tactic to deflect constructive criticism of Feminism. Though I’ve heard it hundreds of times in response to criticisms I’ve raised, among my favorites are 1. Gloria Steinem isn’t a Feminist 2. The National Organization of Women doesn’t represent Feminism 3. The anti-male bias in the VAWA isn’t an outcome of Feminist advocacy.

    Of course, these kinds of statements are ludicrous.

    Feminism has become something of an emotional chimera that has a face of whatever is convenient for a Feminist to say it is at any given time. Many critics of Feminism have noted that Feminism has become a faith-based ideology rather than an ideology based on reason, and I don’t disagree.

    • Danny says:

      Feminism has become something of an emotional chimera that has a face of whatever is convenient for a Feminist to say it is at any given time. Many critics of Feminism have noted that Feminism has become a faith-based ideology rather than an ideology based on reason, and I don’t disagree.
      I prefer to think of it as a shell game where the person shuffling the shells gets to move them around AFTER they have stopped and you have pointed at the one that you think the ball is under.

  24. elissa says:

    Agreed Godless – the politics is slippery by design, like trying to herd cats……

    The biggest tent statement I’ve seen is along the lines of:

    “You’re a feminist if you believe women are people too”.

    Using the above tent, a stray dog wandering the street would qualify as a feminist, but for its simple ability to sniff out a people scent.

    The irreconcilable tents include items / policy / discourse / theory and practice surrounding: VAWA, NOW policies, Government funding, rape culture, Schrodinger Rapist discussion, grievance industry, outrage industry, objectification industry, wage gap ideology, violence ideology, patriarchy discourse, oppressor/oppressed modeling, victim industry etc

    In my opinion and I believe in the eyes of those that have serious friction with the dominant dogma of feminism, it is the the above that are the specious canons that render the current politic useless.

  25. Matthew says:

    In The Balcony Genet illustrates male power as lesser than female power, as the women in his play are the one’s pulling the strings behind the scene, but in the end all are guilty of oppressive power dynamics and the person at the very bottom is the male laborer.

    Who has more power a wealthy suburban woman or a male day laborer, regardless of ethnicity, on minimum wage?

    The problem with generalized feminist arguements is almost any woman who writes theory and critique is already in a position of power via. Academia and the privileged economic forces that places her in that position. And even from the beginning of women’s liberation it was largely an upper middle class and aristocratic movement (in America women gain the right to vote while Jom Crow laws prevent black men and women from voting).

    But even within dating and marriage men are often required to “pay” to court women, and to play the role of provider husband. Hense women’s role within upper middle class and wealthy has moved from housewife to participants in conspicuous consumption.

    But it is this comment which is horrific in consequences:

    “On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.”

    On T.V. You can see commercials of women physically hitting the men they are with, you can see sitcoms where men are shamed and humiliated by women. Men are required often to play strict gender roles, hense the “privilege” men of a particular race and wealth have is granted if they submit to a role.

    For me still the most interesting contemporary phenomenon is the genderqueer and transgendered movements because it really does throw a wrench in all of this. For example a Trans guy is actually a MAN and yet many were former Dykes, I have talked to a few of these guys and have a very unique perspective of gender oppressions.

    • QRG says:

      Hi matthew great comments.

      yes I think trans people do have unique perspectives. But there are pressures on them only to talk about their identity as the gender they identify with. So many trans men for example would be quite closed, about their past before they transitioned. Or before they acknowledged to themselves their identity. It is hard to talk about!

  26. Jared says:

    Ok, I’ve just gone out and read a bunch of your (Ally’s) writings, including several comment threads (where you were comendably active). One thing I have got to say is; ‘You poor poor thing.’ Nobody should have to put up with that level of angry stupidity from both sides of the fence.

    I am left no more fond of feminsim, but significantly less fond of the MRM.

  27. concerned cynic says:

    Ester Vilar broke ranks with feminism in 1971, and claims to have lived in twilight ever since.

    http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html

Leave a Reply

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