What do feminists want?

[AvalonXQ]

Of course, there is the unwanted attention from women, usually stinking drunk who grope rub and just won't take no for an answer. When rebuffed, they frequently engage in physical violence. Note that there is a social taboo against a man's hitting a woman, but there is no taboo against a woman's hitting a man. I must admit that no woman has ever slapped me or poured a drink, but I have been punched and scratched and kicked on many occasions. I've never been put in the hospital or gotten more than a few contusions and lacerations that healed, but it was unpleasant.

I'm quite amazed that a man actually had the guts to mention this.

So, what's the response to this? Is this okay behavior? Should this be ignored, or addressed? If so, how?

(I know what response I expect. We'll see what happens.)

 

[Hokulele]

What do feminists want?

The power that comes from claiming to represent half the world's population.

As a feminist, I want the opportunity to wield the power that comes from claiming to represent the entire world's population and not be forced to accept that I will always only be able to represent half of it.

 

[bookitty]

epepke; Hmm, we seem stuck on the same page together.

To over-simplify: I want everyone to treat everyone better. You want everyone to treat everyone better and the same. So, if we keep the "treat everyone better" in there, I can agree with your ideas and we're both happy.

Ok, so now how do we do that? Personally, I'd rather dedicate my time to gross examples of privilege, like poverty and access to education, but all of these things are subtly intertwined. Watson's example is a little bite-sized morsel of privileged. Not too bad, not too threatening and rather obviously, one with which many people can empathize with - Many women have joined the "please don't do that" chorus, there are guys who are saying "I don't do that, do I?" Even the people who don't agree have thought about it for a minute or two thousand. It made for a nice little starting point.

Although it's a bit difficult to use it now that it's become some sort of huge deal.

 

[bookitty]

I'm quite amazed that a man actually had the guts to mention this.

So, what's the response to this? Is this okay behavior? Should this be ignored, or addressed? If so, how?

(I know what response I expect. We'll see what happens.)

Of course this is not OK behavior. It's awful! It should not happen.

If Watson had gotten drunk and groped a stranger, if she had scratched him because they got into a verbal altercation or any of that I would be the first to condemn her. If there was a thread about women using the subtle sexism that allows for specific bad behavior, I would have quite a lot to say and none of it excusing those women.

But one group doing something truly awful doesn't mean that another group is excused for doing something less awful.

 

[gnome]

I'm quite amazed that a man actually had the guts to mention this.

So, what's the response to this? Is this okay behavior? Should this be ignored, or addressed? If so, how?

(I know what response I expect. We'll see what happens.)

Not OK behavior, and I'd like to think the advice for response would be the same in the gender-reversed situation. A clear verbal statement that the behavior isn't wanted, combined with an unmistakeable physical deflection where possible, and reasonable force if neither has worked. The tone of the statement and amount of physical deflection/force necessary may vary by situation. Ultimately every person, male or female, has the right to defend their body.

 

[epepke]

Of course this is not OK behavior. It's awful! It should not happen.

If Watson had gotten drunk and groped a stranger, if she had scratched him because they got into a verbal altercation or any of that I would be the first to condemn her.

I quite believe you. Nor, however, even due to my limited information, do I think that Rebecca Watson is the kind of person to do that.

The thing is, though, you wouldn't have heard of it. It just wouldn't have been on the radar. It's hard for me to imagine a situation where a man, victimized by a woman, could have possibly gotten away with talking about it at an atheist conference. So they don't try, and that's something to consider.

I can just barely get away with it, because I'm an obnoxious schmuck, and I do things like that, and I'm not fearful of the consequences. Really, though, the average man, even if he is a prominent speaker, isn't going to do it, because if he does, he's not going to be a prominent speaker any more.

 

[bookitty]

I quite believe you. Nor, however, even due to my limited information, do I think that Rebecca Watson is the kind of person to do that.

The thing is, though, you wouldn't have heard of it. It just wouldn't have been on the radar. It's hard for me to imagine a situation where a man, victimized by a woman, could have possibly gotten away with talking about it at an atheist conference. So they don't try, and that's something to consider.

I can just barely get away with it, because I'm an obnoxious schmuck, and I do things like that, and I'm not fearful of the consequences. Really, though, the average man, even if he is a prominent speaker, isn't going to do it, because if he does, he's not going to be a prominent speaker any more.

Actually, I do (or have) heard about it quite a lot. in three places - As a friend, as a bartender and of course, here on this forum every time something loosely related to feminism comes up.

Because male victims don't often discuss what happened, they don't start threads addressing it. As it is a direct result of the same attitudes that place unfair expectation on women, it is something I would be happy to discuss. But it only comes up in threads that are dedicated to women's issues.

There are two problems with this - one is the ever-popular derailing tactic called "What about the men!" in which no women's issue is important because men have a similar/not so similar/completely different negative experience.

The other is that it is off topic and the ground work has been set for a different conversation so it is hard to give it the attention it really deserves.

 

[epepke]

epepke; Hmm, we seem stuck on the same page together.

To over-simplify: I want everyone to treat everyone better. You want everyone to treat everyone better and the same.

I suppose that I'll have to keep saying this until it either sticks or I get really sick and tired. I actually don't have an opinion as to whether people in general, let alone "everyone," should treat everyone the same. I just note what it means when people do and what it means when people don't.

So, if we keep the "treat everyone better" in there, I can agree with your ideas and we're both happy.

That's a start, anyway.

Ok, so now how do we do that? Personally, I'd rather dedicate my time to gross examples of privilege, like poverty and access to education, but all of these things are subtly intertwined. Watson's example is a little bite-sized morsel of privileged. Not too bad, not too threatening and rather obviously, one with which many people can empathize with - Many women have joined the "please don't do that" chorus, there are guys who are saying "I don't do that, do I?" Even the people who don't agree have thought about it for a minute or two thousand. It made for a nice little starting point.

Although it's a bit difficult to use it now that it's become some sort of huge deal.

I have to say that I consider consistent principles more important than pragmatic tactics. For one thing, I don't think that pragmatic tactics are really effective in the long run, or even the short run. Either culture changes too quickly, rendering them obsolete, or it changes too slowly, which can often be traced to the failure of pragmatic tactics.

Anyway, there used to be clear rules about how to go about interactions between the sexes. There were protocols, and most of them were designed and promulgated by women. (There's a little book that summarized them, called Don't.)

These rules had many deficiencies, but they worked overall. (Please don't tell me that I am advocating them. I'm not. I have no particular opinion; I'm talking about things.) In any event, all these rules were opposed during the 60s and 70s, mostly by women, as being oppressive. So they were gotten rid of. The result is that there are no standards as to how to behave, only the certainty that someone who messes up (usually a man) is going to get hammered.

 

[epepke]

Actually, I do (or have) heard about it quite a lot. in three places - As a friend, as a bartender and of course, here on this forum every time something loosely related to feminism comes up.

You've heard about it a certain amount. To you, it's quite a lot. To me, it's way less than it happens.

Seriously, you may think that it is abundant, but I tell you that it happens orders of magnitude more often than you are probably aware of.

Because male victims don't often discuss what happened, they don't start threads addressing it. As it is a direct result of the same attitudes that place unfair expectation on women, it is something I would be happy to discuss. But it only comes up in threads that are dedicated to women's issues.

That's true.

There are two problems with this - one is the ever-popular derailing tactic called "What about the men!" in which no women's issue is important because men have a similar/not so similar/completely different negative experience.

The other is that it is off topic and the ground work has been set for a different conversation so it is hard to give it the attention it really deserves.

Those are also true.

 

[epepke]

I'm quite amazed that a man actually had the guts to mention this.

You talkin' 'bout me? There's nobody else here. You talkin' 'bout me? (Insert appropriate Taxi Driver reference.)

So, what's the response to this? Is this okay behavior? Should this be ignored, or addressed? If so, how?

(I know what response I expect. We'll see what happens.)

I don't know.

I don't think it's OK behavior.

The actual response to it seems to be to ignore it and dismiss men who bring it up, calling them misogynists and the like. I seem to have figured out how to avoid that reaction, but then again, I've been online since the middle 1970s, so I think I'm used to the dynamic.

There have been various attempts. One of them can generally be characterized as The Men's Movement. I know how that went over. There was a book Women Respond to the Men's Movement and a Donahue show with many of the authors. They were pretty hostile. One of them kept talking about how men went into the Executive Washroom to brag about the rapes they did. This is, of course, absurd, as any man knows. Still, a lot of women believed that crap. Nowadays, fewer women do.

My hope (and there is some evidence for this) is that women have come to realize and will continue to come to realize that, based on their intimate acquaintances with men, that what hurts men hurts women too, albeit indirectly. Men and women are too interrelated, at least for the heterosexual majority, to put up for too long with the idea that one sex is bad and the other good.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The actual response to it seems to be to ignore it and dismiss men who bring it up, calling them misogynists and the like.

Or joke about it, and harrass/insult the men who bring it up.

 

[epepke]

Or joke about it, and harrass/insult the men who bring it up.

Functionally similar.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Functionally similar.

... and, in my experience, far more effective.

 

[bookitty]

Or joke about it, and harrass/insult the men who bring it up.

Or point out that this is not the place for it and request that it get a new thread so that it can be addressed properly.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Or point out that this is not the place for it and request that it get a new thread so that it can be addressed properly.

Men talking about trauma are not taken seriously on this forum.

 

[bookitty]

The Men's Rights movement is a strange can of worms. Men have unique negatives, the same way that women do. Addressing the overall cause would help both. For me, the feminist movement is the best way to achieve those goals. (YMMV)

There are men who are fighting for men's rights. Like feminists, they keep watch for ways to make things better - they know which politician is more likely to vote for child care in the workplace, for shared or equal custody rights, death row inmates who haven't been given a fair trial and other issues in which the system is unfair to men. They have my full and honest support because we have so much overlap.

And then there are the laptop warriors whose only "involvement" in men's rights is to enter a thread or comment section on blog post about women's issue to insult women. They don't care about men's rights enough to actually do anything, they just really do not like women. Sadly, these guys are really, really common.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Or point out that this is not the place for it and request that it get a new thread so that it can be addressed properly ignored effectively.

FTFY.

A thread that addresses DV, for example, as a "women's issue" is inherently sexist. Sure, there are probably cases where discussion of a particular issue which does only affect women (though there are precious few of them) could be derailed by a man so accustomed to being silenced or ignored or derided that he speaks in an inappropriate forum. But very few subjects are "women's issues". Equality is an issue for both sexes...though from some of the responses here you'd be hard pressed to recognise that. Equality is not a "women's issue". Even the suffragettes weren't campaigning for all women to get the vote, and when some did, some men still didn't.

 

[jiggeryqua]

They don't care about men's rights enough to actually do anything, they just really do not like women. Sadly, these guys are really, really common.

Equally as common as women who do not like men? Does applying 'really, really' to an assertion work in any other area? I've never met a male misogynist (though I've met plenty of men who've been dismissed with that label). I have met female misogynists. Men actually love women, by and large - sure, we can be frustrated by gender differences, just as women can, and I'm sure there are individual women that individual men hate with a passion. The reverse is just as true, of course. But is it really, really "really, really common" for men to dislike women? Or does saying so just make it easier to justify really, really disliking men?

 

[bookitty]

FTFY.

A thread that addresses DV, for example, as a "women's issue" is inherently sexist. Sure, there are probably cases where discussion of a particular issue which does only affect women (though there are precious few of them) could be derailed by a man so accustomed to being silenced or ignored or derided that he speaks in an inappropriate forum. But very few subjects are "women's issues". Equality is an issue for both sexes...though from some of the responses here you'd be hard pressed to recognise that. Equality is not a "women's issue". Even the suffragettes weren't campaigning for all women to get the vote, and when some did, some men still didn't.

There are issues that affect more men then women. Right now they are filed under "men's rights." As that term and "women's issues" are sexist, what would you suggest we use?

Which thread have you started or participated in that addressed the very real conflicts, and social injustices that are faced by men in the modern world? Please point out a thread dealing with that topic that was ignored or ridiculed.

Equally as common as women who do not like men? Does applying 'really, really' to an assertion work in any other area? I've never met a male misogynist (though I've met plenty of men who've been dismissed with that label). I have met female misogynists. Men actually love women, by and large - sure, we can be frustrated by gender differences, just as women can, and I'm sure there are individual women that individual men hate with a passion. The reverse is just as true, of course. But is it really, really "really, really common" for men to dislike women? Or does saying so just make it easier to justify really, really disliking men?

I wasn't talking about all men. I was talking about certain small group of men for whom "Men's Right's" is the term under which they practice misogyny. These people are not activists for men's rights, they do not vote for politicians who are working towards equality, they don't support any of the groups that are working to address the unique issues faced by men in our society. They just drop into any thread/comment section that is related to something about women in order to say very ugly things.

 

[epepke]

The Men's Rights movement is a strange can of worms. Men have unique negatives, the same way that women do.

Back in the day, I counted five separate men's rights movements. Some of them I agreed with. Some I did not.

Addressing the overall cause would help both. For me, the feminist movement is the best way to achieve those goals. (YMMV)

If and only if feminists expand their goals and eliminate prejudice.

And then there are the laptop warriors whose only "involvement" in men's rights is to enter a thread or comment section on blog post about women's issue to insult women. They don't care about men's rights enough to actually do anything, they just really do not like women. Sadly, these guys are really, really common.

Same thing with laptop feminists, who only make cracks to insult men.