Nice article about how crude man-bashing is becoming a habit among some feminists and why it’s not only hypocritical but also bad for the movement. Same goes for the anti-racism movement and any other social justice movements.
Yeah, I don’t really see it and as a white guy, I don’t experience it either. I didn’t think a lot of her examples really held water either. I’ve never watched whassisname but his objection to the remake of ghostbusters is so obviously sexist to me, I would have thought it was a poor attempt at satire.
That’s because you’re privileged. You live in a bubble.
I think they’re very strong and well-documented.
Yes, that’s the only example that might be weak, but I can’t watch the video to judge for myself. If you didn’t watch, though, how do you know? Have you seen quotes? Just wondering what he actually said.
Did you just use “check your privilege” while ranting against “any social justice movement” ? Damn, dude. I mean, dayumn.
I’m not convinced that this is anything more than a very small issue. Some feminists can be jerks sometimes, but in general I think the movement is stronger than ever. If they’re (we’re) right about the patriarchy, it would make sense to see a backlash as patriarchal systems and culture are threatened.
Um, did you just say I was ranting against social justice movements?
You need to read harder. I’m a strong supporter of social justice and consider myself a proud feminist.
But yeah, that was pretty clever of me though, right?
Seems to be a tiny fraction of feminists who do that…
I think the article makes the case that it’s far more than a “very small issue.”
As long as you agree that it’s wrong and counterproductive though, all that’s left is to discuss how big a problem it is.
If I understand what you’re saying correctly, that’s classic victim-blaming.
It’s not “backlash,” against legitimate attacks, it’s legitimate complaints about sexist attacks from those who should know better. Feminists should not try to use sexism as a weapon against sexism. That’s not only wrong, it backfires.
The one place I will agree with the article is that the term ‘mansplaining’ has reached retirement age in record time. Whereas it once could have been a helpful term to call out cases where men would make assumptions about their female audience and overly explain things they wouldn’t explain to a male audience, the term now simply seems to mean a man explaining something to a woman. With a pejorative connotation.
Who knows how many? The point of the article is that it seems to be growing, and any fraction is too many.
Even if it doesn’t happen very often, I find it frustrating and disappointing when it does. It shouldn’t ever happen. We wouldn’t excuse sexism against women by saying “it’s a tiny fraction of men who do that” either.
I agree, but even in the former case it was a blatantly sexist term.
:rolleyes:
Some of the people complaining about feminists might be actual victims (of an incredibly small transgression), but when I’ve done any digging at all, I’ve usually found that what appeared to be, on the face of it, reasonable complaints, turned out to be whining about being criticized and mocked after screwing up.
If I have time I’ll look at some of these examples, or if you like, pick what you think are the most egregious and I’ll tell you what I think.
Really? Because it seems to me there are people who will accept any excuse to defend sexism against women.
Some people are eager to find a social justice movement making an error so they can then claim that the entire movement is wrong. And they often will try to disguise their hostility to the movement by claiming they support it while they dismiss everything the movement says or does.
Not really. It’s a “cute” portmanteau which is explicitly commenting on gender-based interpersonal interactions. Is observing the phenomenon inherently sexist? Is it sexist because it uses the word “man” as part of the portmanteau. The answer to both is no.
What a strange OP title. IF it is true a significant amount of Feminists man-bash then the conclusion drawn in it is fucking obvious. IF it is not true that a significant amount of Feminists man-bash the person making the statement doesn’t really care about the Feminist Movement.
It’s like some strange version of JAQing off.
You find Straight White Boys Texting a “strong” example of misandry? Assuming they’re accurate, and as a woman, I’m gone go with “yeah probably,” guys are sending texts saying “I’ll blindside you with cock - won’t even see it coming” and “I have a piercing somewhere guess where (hint: penis)/ Answer me whore” And that’s an example of feminists treating men badly? Or are you objecting to the “straight white boy” label?
I am watching the video now…I don’t care for how he says “RE-view”. But he objects to the fact that it’s not Ghostbusters 3. “it looks bad, okay. I watch a lot of bad movies. I see a ton of bad movies, knowingly, and with pleasure. [But I won’t watch this one]” and he objects to the the fact that it has the exact same name as the original - not “Ghostbusters: Next Generation” or something. It’s pretending to be original, with no callbacks to the original. The original actors (those that are still with us) are playing “cameos” but not as themselves.
Honestly, I don’t see that as a weak point in the article. His vilification does seem unjustified to me. The only thing he says about the fact that the Ghostbusters crew is now all women is that since it has the same name, it’s either going to be called Ghostbusters (2016)" or in reality, “the female Ghostbusters,” and what does that make the original? the “Male Ghostbusters”?
The WP article “the End of Men”? I don’t think that article is “treating men unfairly.” The title is unfortunately worded, and if that’s your objection, ok. But the article itself is looking at employment trends, and that the economy may end up treating women better than men, as more women are in service positions less prone to automation. How…unfair?
the whole bathing in male tears thing - yeah, that seems a *wee *bit hateful. I can’t work up much ire about it, in the contexts I have seen it. Like Jessica Valenti, linked in the article posted. I have a hard time getting worked up by a tshirt, meant to poke at her “fans,” worn by a woman who gets rape and death threats.
The Twitter user who posted that "If you have sex w/ someone who is drunk, they are unable to consent & that is rape. " and “If you “took advantage” of someone who is unable to consent, it is rape. End of story.” She got some specific responses like "what if you’re married and the husband was the designated driver? " and “According to @rebeccawatson every sexual encounter she has ever had has, in the morning been a rape.” Yes, it is a nuanced question as people pointed out - what constitutes too drunk to consent? A reasonable way to view it is “hey, maybe I should err on the side of caution.” I mean, look at Brock Turner. He insists that it was consensual, yet he was found on top of a woman who was passed out completely.
That’s a few of the examples in the article. there are a low more, and I don’t feel like going through each and every point. Some to me seem like good points; others - not so much.
Really? Because it seems to me that to me that a good portion of the#NotAllMen posts were doing EXACTLY that.
I guess somebody just needs a safe space to be free of the microaggressions from feminists. It must be very frightening for him.
I’m sick of it. What do men have to do, anyway, in order to be treated with respect by each and every other person in this world? It’s just not fair, and it is a heavy, heavy burden.