Wow, that editor must be really misbehaving.
The point of her article (linked here, for those who are wondering what we are talking about)
is literally that feminists don't actually hate men.
(It is also, by the way, NOT a headline of a newspaper as you earlier described, but the title of a short opinion column)
"...(A) younger generation of feminists has embraced what Slate writer Amanda Hess calls ironic misandry. Hess wrote last year that the rise in popularity of male tears mugs and man-hating inspired shirts and crafts serves as a sort of ****-you to the constant barrage of harassment that feminists often face: On its most basic level, ironic misandry functions like a stuck-out tongue pointed at a playground bully."
Imagine you know a guy, and every time you have a disagreement, he claims that you eat babies because you once said you didn't like children. Eventually, you get so annoyed at being repeatedly called a baby eater that you get a T-shirt that says 'the tastiest part of a baby is the soft spot' with a picture of a baby on a plate to make fun of him. Upon seeing this, he screams "I KNEW IT! YOU ADMIT IT! YOU EAT BABIES! Cannibalism is terrible, how could you make fun of children being killed and devoured?"
You might rightfully face palm at the guy's complete lack of ironic awareness, the fact that any time you say anything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notion of your appetites he ignores it, and the stupidity of the entire situation in the first place.
Some feminists 'hate' men the same way some people say they 'hate' hipsters. You might groan when you see a guy in a flannel shirt riding a fixie down the sidewalk, but that doesn't mean you want to go on a shooting spree at an indie music store. There is a huge difference. Can you honestly say that you have never, in your entire life, said that you hated something or someone when you were actually just frustrated and annoyed? You are ignoring the nuance and context and focusing only on what you want to see - justification for your criticism of feminists.
There have been several misogynistic shooting sprees though. (Article) And while there have been a few female spree shooters (less than ten out of all 1314), none of their stated motivations were male hatred.
So... let me see if I'm getting this right.
To you, a joke making fun of being accused of a ridiculous stereotype = a joke about a violent, traumatic attack that happens to nearly 300,000 innocent people every year, male and female. (Ref)
By that logic, we could never make jokes about anything, because everything is related to some kind of issue. Are you really saying that either everything is in bad taste, or nothing is? Different subjects have different levels of acceptability to the public for a reason.
And for the record, the 'rape jokes' I personally find most offensive are the ones about men being raped, because often there is no attempt whatsoever to be respectful or even indicate that it is wrong. Examples off the top of my head include the movie Wedding Crashers and the Amazon episode of Futurama, both playing sexual assault against men for laughs.
And I'd say that you have to start tackling a problem somewhere (regarding rape) and also... come on. (Regarding sitting and clothes.)
While female rapists do exist (and should be prosecuted just as male rapists are), the majority of rapists are male and the majority of victims are female. You will not find any statistics to refute that.
Does it not make sense to try to focus on the larger group of aggressors?
Links please. Links please. Links please.
Hilarious that in your previous paragraph you decry generalizing and judgement, and then in your very next paragraph you generalize and judge.
I'll wait. So far I have seen a lot of accusations in this thread against the 'feminist movement', but the only actual evidence of these accusations has been criticizing the public transit version of parking over two spaces and an article that literally starts with 'Feminists don't hate men.' Oh the horror.
There's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters.If you flipped the gender of a statement about "women" or "black people" to "men" or "white people" respectively, and it sounded like an unfair generalisation or a stereotype, then it was a suggestion that you were being sexist/racist.
There's a Chrome extension called Jailbreak the Patriarchy that allows you to swap all the gendered pronouns on the page.There's a rather interesting new subreddit called /r/menkampf - and they've been doing some entertaining experiments with this notion of swapping terms out.
In short, they swap terms like "men" or "cismen" to "Jews", and terms like "women" to "Aryans".
The results are rather interesting.
I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar.This is not dredged up from some random tumblrite either, this is the swapped form of an excerpt from this article by feminist journalist Jessica Valenti.
Yes, it is. I'm quite fond of it as a discipline, but I'm not too keen on the "anything goes" culture that the Internet has created.Isn't it kind of a problem that the attitudes espoused by some quite noteworthy feminists in the public are virtually indistinguishable from some other quite nasty prejudices?
Cheers very much Cearbhall - much appreciatedThere's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters. There's a Chrome extension called Jailbreak the Patriarchy that allows you to swap all the gendered pronouns on the page. I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar. Yes, it is. I'm quite fond of it as a discipline, but I'm not too keen on the "anything goes" culture that the Internet has created.
Ah yes, Elliott Rodger - the "misogynistic" shooter who killed more men than he did women. Going by his manifesto, yes, he was misogynist, but this is not more of a deal than the fact that he was also misandrist, and generally misanthropic.
Mmmm....yes, and I've noticed considerably less feminist pushback against those. Of course, that old chestnut of "rape culture" is rarely if ever applied to men.
"In this sense, manspreading is a manifestation of gendered territorial entitlement; it taps into, if you will, the male privilege of taking up physical space."
This has always been curious to me, considering how many male heroes are drawn halfnaked or wearing skintight clothing. Just another case of people not being part of a community deciding they are the arbiters of what is right in said community.There's a visual version of this called the Hawkeye Initiative that started a couple years ago and is quite amusing. It consists of fan art of Hawkeye and other male comic book characters in the poses and clothing of female characters.
What part of her do you like? Where she devalues men as a sex? Where she laughs at the pain of men? Her habit of getting butthurt at everything and turning non-gendered issues into gendered ones?I love Jessica Valenti. I had to read one of her books for a seminar.
Feminism is hate group now? In my world, it's a discipline.
Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions? Just wondering. I know there are people who feel this way, and though I don't agree, I think it's a valid position. It just seems to boil down to attitudes towards semantics.Of course not, but why would you want to be part of a group where such behaviour is considered acceptable?
It's very strange to me that people try to lump all feminists together. Anyone can claim the term. Is there any movement/religion/discipline in which all people agree?Fortunately, you do not get to define feminism for me. I am for equal rights, not superior ones.
Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions?
What makes you assume that they're outside the community? It's mostly comic book readers and writers/artists who get sick of it and wanted to see things change. They're the ones who have to look at it. I'm not a reader of them myself, so I can't speak as to whether their assessment is accurate in the grand scheme of things.This has always been curious to me, considering how many male heroes are drawn halfnaked or wearing skintight clothing. Just another case of people not being part of a community deciding they are the arbiters of what is right in said community.
I was referring more to the idea that the actions of some people within the group taints the label itself, and that this development means the label should be abandoned by all. I personally don't see it that way, but nor do I demonize all Christians/Muslims for having a label in common with wrong-doers. I was wondering if his philosophy also carries over to religion.It is because of my experience with religion that I was tipped off to the problems in feminism. Similar faulty mindsets, similar mistakes.
As your claim doesnt make it false.She can claim that - that doesn't make it true.
You used that as an example of how 'mainstream' hating men was by 1) quoting it out of context (only providing half of the title) and b) saying it was a headline when it wasn't. Is it really the same thing, or is it just you feeling uncomfortable about being wrong?Same difference. The same sort of statement would not be considered ok to make about any other group.
And the same sort of statement - denying the issues faced by a group - would be considered hatred of that group, so by the same token she is engaging in hatred of men.
You realize that when you generalize about the ebil feminist agenda, you sound just like those people who wail and gnash their teeth about the homosexual agenda, or the atheist agenda, right? Gay people don't want to make your kids gay, atheists aren't actually agents of satan, and feminists don't really hate men. It's all just propaganda to smear and discredit people who are raising awareness about real issues.Or to put it another way, it would be like how all those Evil Atheist Conspiracy jokes about eating kittens if there actually were a significant number of atheist kitten-eaters.
That he was incompetant and failed at his goal of killing more women than he did, doesn't make it any less a misogynistic actAh yes, Elliott Rodger - the "misogynistic" shooter who killed more men than he did women. Going by his manifesto, yes, he was misogynist, but this is not more of a deal than the fact that he was also misandrist, and generally misanthropic.
When discussing the appropriateness of making fun of being accused of misandry, you said:So... let me see if I'm getting this right.
To you, a joke making fun of being accused of a ridiculous stereotype = a joke about a violent, traumatic attack that happens to nearly 300,000 innocent people every year, male and female. (Ref)
Cool strawman sis
So yes, you compared those two subjects on even ground, and no, it's not a strawman. Nice dodge, bro.Since when does "it's only a joke" about an issue make it ok? Last time I checked, feminists were more than a little up in arms about sexist jokes and rape jokes.
Of course I am aware, I was just talking about it, wasn't I? I never denied that there is currently a backlash against rape jokes, (hell, I indicated that I am also against them in general) so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. That some people find flippant remarks about rape to be offensive, and are expressing that opinion, as is their free-speech right? Oh noes!Obviously you're unaware of the policing of rape jokes going on, a lot of it driven by feminists:
Maybe you're just not listening.Mmmm....yes, and I've noticed considerably less feminist pushback against those. Of course, that old chestnut of "rape culture" is rarely if ever applied to men.
"Hey, I know you're trying to fix something, but you're not trying to fix EVERYTHING, so you're really just a hypocrite who actually wants to make things worse."Funny how it's tackling a problem in a way that completely erases a portion of it. And really, how is it much harder to say "teach people not to rape", or "teach men and women not to rape"?
Women AND men are often ignorant of the damage that a woman rapist/assaulter can do to a man. Ironically, this is a thing that feminism would solve. When men and women are truly considered equal, a female rapist will face the same stigma as a male rapist. A woman's punch will be considered assault just as much as a man's.Heck, I'd say men are going better on that bit of teaching. Men at least know it is possible for men to commit rape. Women IME are far less cognisant of the fact that they can.
The articles quoted are not just about 'manspreading'; they are using it as a jumping off point for a discussion about body language, personal territory, and gender norms.Regarding sitting and clothes, yes, when someone calls sitting a particular way a display of privilege / aggression towards nearby people/women, then yes, I'd argue that person has some serious issues towards men to put forward such a stupid proposition.
Men's Rights Activism Takes To Public Transit: The Great "Manspreading" Debate | Ravishly
The real reason men should keep their legs together | Barbara Ellen | Comment is free | The Guardian
Ramping up the threat narrative against men in that classic feminist fashion. Guy sitting with his legs spread on the train? HE MIGHT ASSAULT YOU.
Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train
You linked a tumblr blog, an online community, and another opinion piece (not a journalism piece). I suppose this is what you get in posts when you treat every website like it's a newspaper? Or is this another one of those 'same differences' when you say a thing is not actually what it is to make your point sound better?I suppose this is what you get in newspapers when you treat tumblr as the next Reuters, but feminists have their amazing standards for quality journalism, I suppose
Are you aware that the tumblr you keep referring to is run by a man? One who does not (at least in the thirty-odd pages I skimmed) claim to be a feminist?On that tumblr, note the disdain for statements about male physiology coming from men, and more worryingly the disdain for the fact that these people are having their pictures posted online without their consent, without their faces being blurred out.
Imagine the sort of reaction you'd see from feminists to men dismissing female physiological issues, or taking pictures of them online without them realising to upload online. And then being told that it's ok, because what they're really doing is highlighting their displays of privilege.
Yes, I know about shirtstorm.As for what you wear, this is in reference to #shirtstorm, when lead Rosetta scientist Matt Taylor wore a shirt made by a lady friend of his on TV during the comet landing.
Leading to charming pieces like this:
I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist and ostracizing | The Verge
Tweets like... what? Did you actually read the page you just linked?
The website said:As far as a deluge of critical tweets - THAT even barely happened. Most of the tweets are supportive.
So - that was ALL of Nov. 12.
Abusive tweets in "feminist lynch mob" = 3
I suspect that Taylor did realize - especially when being confronted with teachers talking about their students - that he made a mistake.
It could be that he felt pressured to apologize - I don't know - I can't read minds. But he was not "bullied" by a "feminist lynch mob".
Going through 4 recent hours of tweets and the entire day of Nov. 12th - there are more abusive tweet TO OTHER PPL in his mentions.
Currently, in his mentions - he is being thanked and applauded for apologizing & being asked to help stop the harassment of his critics.
Looking through Taylor's mentions. Starting to wonder if he was crying due to being love-bombed by ********.
I'm not even kidding - many of them are tagging him in with abuse toward Eveleth. I'd find that disturbing if I were him.
I'll say in their defence that even for some feminists this was jumping the shark. That doesn't change the fact that this online mob was motivated by feminism.
He apologized for making a mistake and got emotional. OH THE HARMS. TRULY HE IS BUT A HOLLOW SHELL OF HIS FORMER MANLY SELF. HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER.I don't see how one shirt will have any effect on women getting into science (and frankly, if it were to, I think science is better of without such people. But I don't believe that, possibly because I have a better belief in women than the shirtstorm whingers do) - and if it's representative of a wider problem, why dogpile the one guy about it?
There was no apparent harm from that guy's shirt - the immediately apparent harm from that twitter mob was this:
If you would like to start a campaign illuminating the problem of female rapists and make a bunch of posters saying 'Erection is not consent' or 'Don't be that woman', by all means go ahead. I would totally support that. As I have already pointed out, equal societal standing between men and women would mean that female rapists would face the same consequences as male rapists.Depends on how you frame it. Studies are increasingly showing that women are the majority rapists of men.
Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.
But look, let's grant your assertion that women are the majority of rapists. So what? How does that justify memes and posters like "Don't be that guy" or "Teach men not to rape"? I don't see slogans like "Don't be that Muslim" at airports or "Teach black men not to steal" alongside parking meters as likely to go down to well, do you?
So why is it different when the target is men?
Ironically, that's an opinion you share with the FEMINIST whose studies/article you were just referencing.As for stats - I'm of the opinion that it's only recently that we're figuring out just how much of a problem rape is for men as well, and how much of it is female-perpetrated. Given that in many western states women can't even be accused of rape - true in the UK, for example - I think there's a big cultural resistance to breaking out of the "it's something men do" mindset. Obviously older stats are going to reflect that in some way - heck, even the CDC doesn't call it "rape" when a woman forces a man to penetrate her - they called it "made to penetrate" instead.
Sure sounds like rape to me. Although that may have been an inadvertant benefit, in that not even male victims of rape will always call it rape themselves, it probably helped to get a truer picture of the numbers. I can't say it still comes across as something society is concerned about however.
The Article said:Stemple is a longtime feminist who fully understands that men have historically used sexual violence to subjugate women and that in most countries they still do. As she sees it, feminism has fought long and hard to fight rape myths—that if a woman gets raped it’s somehow her fault, that she welcomed it in some way. But the same conversation needs to happen for men. By portraying sexual violence against men as aberrant, we prevent justice and compound the shame. And the conversation about men doesn’t need to shut down the one about women. “Compassion,” she says, “is not a finite resource.”
No. For one, as I already mentioned, majority aggressors with regard to other serious crimes aren't singled out in terms of non-essential, superficial characteristics, like race.
For two - I think focusing on a majority perpetrator group is a bad idea, as it tends to leave the victims of the minority perpetrator group neglected.
Jade Margery said:
As your claim doesnt make it false.
You used that as an example of how 'mainstream' hating men was by 1) quoting it out of context (only providing half of the title) and b) saying it was a headline when it wasn't. Is it really the same thing, or is it just you feeling uncomfortable about being wrong?
And as was earlier pointed out, there are many groups it would be considered okay to make that statement about. Straight people, white people, christians, Americans... pretty much anyone 'on top' of the privilege pile.
You realize that when you generalize about the ebil feminist agenda, you sound just like those people who wail and gnash their teeth about the homosexual agenda, or the atheist agenda, right? Gay people don't want to make your kids gay, atheists aren't actually agents of satan, and feminists don't really hate men. It's all just propaganda to smear and discredit people who are raising awareness about real issues.
That he was incompetant and failed at his goal of killing more women than he did, doesn't make it any less a misogynistic act.
When discussing the appropriateness of making fun of being accused of misandry, you said:
So yes, you compared those two subjects on even ground, and no, it's not a strawman. Nice dodge, bro.
Maybe you're just not listening.
Nerdy Feminist: We Live in a Rape Culture. And it Hurts Everyone.
Essential Concepts: How Patriarchy and Rape Culture Hurt Men | Change Happens: The SAFER Blog
It's not feminism that hurts men - Features - The F-Word
https://theradicalidea.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/5-ways-the-patriarchy-hurts-men-too/
"Hey, I know you're trying to fix something, but you're not trying to fix EVERYTHING, so you're really just a hypocrite who actually wants to make things worse."
Women AND men are often ignorant of the damage that a woman rapist/assaulter can do to a man. Ironically, this is a thing that feminism would solve. When men and women are truly considered equal, a female rapist will face the same stigma as a male rapist. A woman's punch will be considered assault just as much as a man's.
The articles quoted are not just about 'manspreading'; they are using it as a jumping off point for a discussion about body language, personal territory, and gender norms.
You linked a tumblr blog, an online community, and another opinion piece (not a journalism piece). I suppose this is what you get in posts when you treat every website like it's a newspaper?
Or is this another one of those 'same differences' when you say a thing is not actually what it is to make your point sound better?
Are you aware that the tumblr you keep referring to is run by a man? One who does not (at least in the thirty-odd pages I skimmed) claim to be a feminist?
As to the non-blurring of faces, I'm not about to defend what I find abhorrent. I think it's wrong to post photos of people without their permission/unblurred, but disrespect for that kind of privacy is hardly unique to feminists.
Yes, I know about shirtstorm.
The guy wore a sexist and unprofessional shirt, and people pointed out that it was sexist and unprofessional.
And then he appologized for it.
And then it was over.
What point are you trying to make? The 'charming' article you quote doesn't scream for his head or demand his job or say he's a monster. It says that some people found his choice of clothing offensive, and why they found it offensive.
Tweets like... what? Did you actually read the page you just linked?
It is a person summarizing the activity of the 'feminist twitter lynch mob' by noting every aggressive and/or personally attacking tweet that went out before Taylor apologized. The page's conclusion? There were three (3!) personally attacking tweets. Three.
So, three abusive tweets, that at their worst called him a jerk.
Nobody threatened to kill him, or rape him, or mutilate him. Nobody posted his address online or pictures of his house or his phone number or the phone numbers of his relatives. Nobody even said he should be fired. This is wrong to you? This is a great injustice? This is misandry in action? No wonder we're laughing.
"You should have your tongue ripped out": the reality of sexist abuse online
Zoe Quinn: 'Twitter #Gamergate has ruined my life' - Telegraph
Page o Hate | Skepchick
Image Based Harassment and Visual Misogyny | Feminist Frequency
https://storify.com/JessicaValenti/what-happens-when-a-woman-writer-asks-a-question-o
The very website you linked showed that there was no online mob. Once again, blaming feminism for something that doesn't actually exist.
He apologized for making a mistake and got emotional. OH THE HARMS. TRULY HE IS BUT A HOLLOW SHELL OF HIS FORMER MANLY SELF. HOW WILL HE EVER RECOVER.
If you would like to start a campaign illuminating the problem of female rapists and make a bunch of posters saying 'Erection is not consent' or 'Don't be that woman', by all means go ahead. I would totally support that. As I have already pointed out, equal societal standing between men and women would mean that female rapists would face the same consequences as male rapists.
And the difference is that racial and religious minorities do not enjoy a position of societal privilege and power.
Ironically, that's an opinion you share with the FEMINIST whose studies/article you were just referencing.
When it comes to rape, gender is not a non-essential characteristic. It is a defining one - in either direction.
That is a fair argument, and you're entitled to your opinion.
Is this how you feel about all other movements, including religions? Just wondering. I know there are people who feel this way, and though I don't agree, I think it's a valid position. It just seems to boil down to attitudes towards semantics.
It's very strange to me that people try to lump all feminists together.
Anyone can claim the term. Is there any movement/religion/discipline in which all people agree?
What makes you assume that they're outside the community? It's mostly comic book readers and writers/artists who get sick of it and wanted to see things change. They're the ones who have to look at it. I'm not a reader of them myself, so I can't speak as to whether their assessment is accurate in the grand scheme of things.
I was referring more to the idea that the actions of some people within the group taints the label itself, and that this development means the label should be abandoned by all. I personally don't see it that way, but nor do I demonize all Christians/Muslims for having a label in common with wrong-doers. I was wondering if his philosophy also carries over to religion.