• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Why can't we hate men?"

pharphis

Master Poster
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
2,169
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b66687601fc3

It’s not that Eric Schneiderman (the now-former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women) pushed me over the edge. My edge has been crossed for a long time, before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before “mansplaining” and “incels.” Before live-streaming sexual assaults and red pill men’s groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.

Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men. I can’t lie, I’ve always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown, for naming the problem in no uncertain terms. I’ve rankled at the “but we don’t hate men” protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the “men are not the problem, this system is” obfuscation too precious by half.

I'm so glad that the patriarchy allows for such publications to exist in mainstream papers, written by an academic, no less!

This article would fit well on r/menkampf

Question to the feminists on this forum: Is the author above one of the "real feminists" I should be working along side if I want to address the issue of gender inequality?
 
Bigots of all kinds use similar arguments against their targets. This stupid twat is no different.
 
Not sure what you mean

The implication is that you're painting feminists with too broad a brush.

But that isn't what you're actually doing. You're asking feminists how broad a brush they want you to paint with. It's entirely up to them.
 
What does the rest of the article say? It's behind a paywall.

In the lines presented, I think the author makes a case for hatred of men being rational to an extent. It's still bad, but you can see where someone who hates men for what they do to women is coming from.
 
What does the rest of the article say? It's behind a paywall.

In the lines presented, I think the author makes a case for hatred of men being rational to an extent. It's still bad, but you can see where someone who hates men for what they do to women is coming from.
I can't

But then I'm a bloke so who cares
 
What does the rest of the article say? It's behind a paywall.

She walks it back a bit by saying criticism of the position is valid, and that focusing on institutional rather than individual power is better. Then she lists global inequalityies in leadership positions, pay, unpaid labor, violence, etc. She also reflects on #MeToo's shortcomings and responds to some criticisms of #MeToo.

Her ending call to action is this:

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

The cheap response to this is that this is a White woman writing. She should be quiet and leave leadership positions open for People of Color. The only people in power should be disabled, Black, queer, fat, trans, Non-Binary, etc.

A response article:

Still, the core question warrants a dispassionate, substantive answer.

“Is it really so illogical to hate men?”

Yes, it is.

It is always illogical to hate an entire group of people for behavior perpetrated by a subset of its members and actively opposed or renounced by literally millions of them. It is every bit as easy, and more just, to assign collective rhetorical blame to groups that deserve it, like “murderers” or “rapists” or “domestic abusers” or “sexists.”

Indulging in collective hate validates hatred itself and the flawed premise of group rather than individual responsibility. It puts all groups at greater risk of suffering hatred, for there are bad individuals in any group and folks ready to hate every group. What’s more, any hate tends to harm the individual who harbors it.

Finally, group hate tends to make those who harbor it less able to see clearly, less likely to acknowledge nuance, and less able to improve the world, even as their wrongheaded ideas risk leading others into destructive errors.

For example, some of Walters’s less thoughtful readers might draw the conclusion that bad behavior by men damages women exclusively, and erroneously conclude that half the population—maybe their own half—has no strictly selfish interest in tackling the sundry forms violence that are mostly caused by men. But (for instance) men are wildly overrepresented among both homicide perpetrators and homicide victims—according to the UN, 78 percent of homicide victims are male. Even the most self-interested man has a stake in perceiving, studying, and trying to remedy most ills men disproportionately inflict.

Little wonder so many have tried so mightily to do so.

Less-thoughtful readers might mistakenly draw the conclusion, as well, that women need play no part in remedying the problem that Walters calls toxic masculinity. But insofar as socialization helps create some gendered ills, insofar as women participate in the socialization of infant and adolescent boys, and insofar as some of those women as surely as some men socialize them into “toxic” patterns of behavior, advising men, “don’t be in charge of anything” is inadequate.

Indeed, in the realm of fatherhood, where too much abdication of responsibility is a catastrophic societal problem, it would be deeply counterproductive. (If there’s a particular man out there really excelling at heading a cancer research lab or a project on carbon capture, perhaps he ought to stay on the job, too?) The overwhelming majority of feminists want equality, not male abdication of power and responsibility. In the name of feminism, Walters advocates for a future that few women want within a framework that mistakenly treats their project as zero sum.

There is much more to be said about the folly of hatred, and none of it best said by me. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that “darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that,” and that “hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”

Linky.
 
What does the rest of the article say? It's behind a paywall.

In the lines presented, I think the author makes a case for hatred of men being rational to an extent. It's still bad, but you can see where someone who hates men for what they do to women is coming from.

It sort of gets more reasonable in the middle, and then less so toward the end.
The last two paragraphs sum up the thrust of the piece:
The world has little place for feminist anger. Women are supposed to support, not condemn, offer succor not dismissal. We’re supposed to feel more empathy for your fear of being called a harasser than we are for the women harassed. We are told he’s with us and #NotHim. But, truly, if he were with us, wouldn’t this all have ended a long time ago? If he really were with us, wouldn’t he reckon that one good way to change structural violence and inequity would be to refuse the power that comes with it?

So men, if you really are #WithUs and would like us to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this: Lean out so we can actually just stand up without being beaten down. Pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power. We got this. And please know that your crocodile tears won’t be wiped away by us anymore. We have every right to hate you. You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy. It is long past time to play hard for Team Feminism. And win.

So if you happen to have been born male, you are collectively responsible for all of the male violence and patriarchy that has been going on for millennia, got it? The only way to atone is to step aside and put feminist women in charge of all the important stuff.
 
It sort of gets more reasonable in the middle, and then less so toward the end.
The last two paragraphs sum up the thrust of the piece:


So if you happen to have been born male, you are collectively responsible for all of the male violence and patriarchy that has been going on for millennia, got it? The only way to atone is to step aside and put feminist women in charge of all the important stuff.

Seems kind of harsh. Maybe we should discuss how we can assuage her issues while aiming for equality instead of matriarchy?

Do you think the article might be a bit over the top on purpose?
 
I do love that the pic atop the article is the least flattering picture of Harvey Weinstein that I have ever seen, and he is not a handsome man. But there he looks like one of the brothers from The Hills Have Eyes. It's like the OJ cover of Newsweek all over again.

But all I really needed to read was the bio of the writer:

Suzanna Danuta Walters, a professor of sociology and director of the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program at Northeastern University, is the editor of the gender studies journal Signs.

Yeah, let me guess the article is not about how hard she struggled against the idea of hating men. I'm going out on a limb here and predicting it's more of a call to (metaphorical of) course arms.

Wow, bingo:

I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.

It's amusing that her ideals of female empowerment come from movies that were released 27 years ago and 44 (!) years ago.

My take? Basic clickbait journalism.
 
Last edited:
I do love that the pic atop the article is the least flattering picture of Harvey Weinstein that I have ever seen, and he is not a handsome man. But there he looks like one of the brothers from The Hills Have Eyes. It's like the OJ cover of Newsweek all over again.

But all I really needed to read was the bio of the writer:



Yeah, let me guess the article is not about how hard she struggled against the idea of hating men. I'm going out on a limb here and predicting it's more of a call to (metaphorical of) course arms.

Wow, bingo:



It's amusing that her ideals of female empowerment come from movies that were released 27 years ago and 44 (!) years ago.

My take? Basic clickbait journalism.
It's even more primitive, in my view, than the thinking of 27 or 44 years ago. Imagine that you lived in the Middle Ages under the rule of a tyrant king. You wish to escape from his rule, but how? Well the simplest idea you could possibly have is to imagine that you are now the king, and fantasise about all the things you would do if ever that came to pass. But apart from the change of person in power, everything else remains exactly the same.

You have no way to envisage a different society. You've never seen or experienced one. That's hard to imagine - no tyrant king at all. Governments chosen by ballot of the entire population. So faced with oppression, the uninformed mind at first responds by imagining not the abolition of oppression, but vengeful exercise of tyrannical powers by the formerly oppressed part of the population.

"Ah, I know what I would do to King Eric Bloodaxe if I was on his throne, and he was here in my cottage. No more forelock-tugging obsequiousness from me! I'd know how to make him suffer!"

But this primitive mindset provides no solution to social problems. It has been tested in practice only too often, invariably with lamentable results.
 
It's even more primitive, in my view, than the thinking of 27 or 44 years ago. Imagine that you lived in the Middle Ages under the rule of a tyrant king. You wish to escape from his rule, but how? Well the simplest idea you could possibly have is to imagine that you are now the king, and fantasise about all the things you would do if ever that came to pass. But apart from the change of person in power, everything else remains exactly the same.

You have no way to envisage a different society. You've never seen or experienced one. That's hard to imagine - no tyrant king at all. Governments chosen by ballot of the entire population. So faced with oppression, the uninformed mind at first responds by imagining not the abolition of oppression, but vengeful exercise of tyrannical powers by the formerly oppressed part of the population.

"Ah, I know what I would do to King Eric Bloodaxe if I was on his throne, and he was here in my cottage. No more forelock-tugging obsequiousness from me! I'd know how to make him suffer!"

But this primitive mindset provides no solution to social problems. It has been tested in practice only too often, invariably with lamentable results.

I tend to think this is sort of the point. Feminists are scaring men by claiming that they want what men has at the expense of men. Does that not tell you something about the situation we're in?
 
I tend to think this is sort of the point. Feminists are scaring men by claiming that they want what men has at the expense of men. Does that not tell you something about the situation we're in?
So you don't think that it's intended to be taken seriously? The author doesn't believe what she says? I hope you're right.
 
I tend to think this is sort of the point. Feminists are scaring men by claiming that they want what men has at the expense of men. Does that not tell you something about the situation we're in?

No. Feminists are scaring men by claiming they want what they imagine men have at the expense of men.
 
So you don't think that it's intended to be taken seriously? The author doesn't believe what she says? I hope you're right.

I think it was cathartic for the author and many of the intended readers. I don't think it's a statement of intent.
 

Back
Top Bottom