It’s one thing to judge a group (men, women, Muslims, blacks, whites, etc.) by the actions of a few.
It’s another thing to judge a movement (feminism, white separtism, etc.) by the actions of a few, particularly if those few are prominent people in the movement. My sister took a women’s studies course while in college. One of the main books in the course was “Against our Will” by Susan Brownmiller. Out of curiousity, I started reading the book and read her saying something to the effect of “rape is a process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”
Ok, so is Susan Brownmiller not a true feminist? And if she isn’t, then why are her books required reading in women’s studies courses?
Not all feminists took that course. Or believe in its teachings.
That course is not definitive of all courses in women’s studies.
As you say, that book was only one of several texts studied.
I don’t know Susan Brownmiller’s current standing on the secret list of ‘true’ feminists - I didn’t get that memo.
One of my texts in a journalism paper espoused the view that every submission should be typed, no other format was acceptable - It made no allowance for computers or even stories being called in (too much room for error). I just figured that it was an outdated viewpoint.
But, you know, it was thought provoking.
I’ve never read anything by Susan Brownmiller or taken a women’s studies class, but in a lot of college courses, particularly liberal arts courses, you study a variety of texts that don’t represent the maintream view. Usually that’s a big part of the discussion.
I find this equating of the entire movement of feminism with the beliefs of the more radical feminists to be … disturbing. Along the lines of when people condemn Christianity because of Fred Phelps. I think Niven’s Law #16 says it well: “There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it.”
Not at all. Epimetheus’s girlfriend espouses an offshoot of feminist theory referred to as radical feminism, and a subset of that known as separatist feminism.
Please re-read my post. Nowhere in it did I say that feminists could never take a gynocentric point of view or indulge in misandry. I only stated that it was not required. Liberal and individualistic feminists find more than a few flaws with radical, separatist feminism, including the hostility inherent in a stance that declares no man is capable of combating sexism, bigotry, and prejudice.
This is, unfortunately, untrue.
Again, some feminists - specifically those who adhere to the radical, separatist feminist theory - believe that gender inequities inherent in our world cannot be addressed by simple reform but only by radically stripping out our current socio-economic structure and replacing it with an anti-capitalist, anti-patriarchal hierarchy. Separatists take it further by asserting that all women are better off without men, and that the only way women will experience true equality is to abjure the company of all men.
Personally, I think that’s a load of bunk. I believe the radical and separatist feminists out there receive far more attention than they are due because their agenda is so threatening and controversial. I also believe that many political pundits make a habit of conflating radical, separatist feminists with all other types of feminists in an effort to demonize feminism.
brazil84, I can’t help but think you’re trying to pick a fight where there simply isn’t one. There is no conflict between what I said in my first referenced post and my second one.
Feminism does not equal “man hating”.
One does not need to hate men to be a feminist. A few feminists do hate men. This is unfortunate and misguided. It does not repudiate, contradict, or rebut the basic purpose of feminism - to address the historic political, legal, religious, and social inequities women have suffered.
All feminists, by definition, advocate gender equity - that women should have the same freedoms, rights, and responsibilities that men do. Some feminists take this further and advocate women’s rights through a radical reconstruction of social, economic, political, and religious hierarchies. Even fewer of those feminists assert that even radical reconstruction cannot address the inequities women suffer. They claim the only way for women to achieve truly equal rights is to separate themselves completely from men. In making this claim, these feminists state that, due to their very nature, men will prevent women from achieving equality.
If you’re going to talk about gynocentrism, gynarchy, and misandry as a political goal, you need to be specific and refer to radical, separatist feminism. Not just feminism. To do otherwise is to lump all feminists with one bigoted group. That can only be accomplished by falling prey to the logical fallacies of unrepresentative sample and composition.
I disagree, but in any event, my original point stands: When a feminist author writes a largely positive story about an all female Earth, the obvious assumption is that she thinks it’s a good thing. Of course, nobody can ever know for sure what an author thinks.
What if Joe Schmoe, a member of Fred Phelps’ church wrote a science fiction story in which a virus killed all the world’s homosexuals? Would you think there’s a good chance that Joe Schmoe thinks that a world without homosexuals is a good thing?
That one author believes it, yes - that all christians believe that? No.
I watched an evengelist on television who said that the breaking of a woman’s hymen on her wedding night was a blood sacrafice to god, confirming and glorying the covenant of marriage - therefore, he believed that any time a husband made his wife bleed during intercourse, he was offering a prayer to god.
Does this mean all men are rapists? Hell No.
All Christians? Hell no.
All Evangelists? Hell no.
All African American evagelists with their own TV show? Hell no.
That there was one sick puppy spouting poisonous, hate filled shit on the TV that morning? Yep.
And that’s all it proved - his own stated beliefs, no-one else’s MyglassISfull? How YOU doin?
Of course. That’s why I said “Christians,” not “Westboro Baptist Church members.” Which is precisely the problem with what you’re saying. You’ve equated “feminism” with “radical misandric feminism.” Just as “Christian” does not mean “homophobe” even though there are some Christians who are homophobic, so does “feminism” not equal “man-hating” even though there are some feminists that hate men. And that’s why there is no conflict with what phouka’s two posts.
Incidentally, I read the Wikipedia articles on “James Tiptree, Jr.” and “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?”, and it doesn’t really sound to me like a hateful story describing a man-hater’s paradise. And from what I can tell, a lot of others seem to agree.
Suppose that there is a noted Christian who goes around telling everyone to accept Jesus before it’s too late; that the Bible is the direct word of God; and so on. Suppose further that many people in this guy’s church read and distribute the works of Fred Phelps and other figures who have a strong stance against homosexuality.
Now suppose that this noted Christian writes a science fiction book in which a virus kills all homosexuals and Jews of the world accept Jesus as their savior.
Would you say there’s a pretty good chance that this noted Christian believes that a world without homosexuals is a good thing?
Just so we’re clear, I’m not saying that all feminists hate men.
No-one is questioning that Susan Brownmiller has anti male sentiments. No-one is questioning that there is an extremist element within the outskirts of feminism that support and agree with those sentiments. Maybe they believe that the world would be better without men, just as some men honestly believe the world would be better without women.
There is a good chance that your one Christian homophobe believes what he says, there’s a fair (but lesser) chance that the people promoting his book believe it too (there will be a sliding scale of “I believe it, every word” through to “Well, he’s getting publicity for our church.”
There will be the rest of the christian world. They will be the great and vast majority.
I did a little research and, at the time Ms Brownmiller was writing her book, it was legal in the United states for men to rape their wives. In fact, it was not considered rape - it was his conjugal right, whether his wife consented or not.
By the time the book was published in 1975, some states had made it illegal.
It wasn’t until 1997 that all 50 states agreed that women had a legal right to refuse to have sex with their husbands.
In 33 states in the USA today, it is still considered a lesser crime than raping any other woman.
I still do not agree that all men use rape to intimidate all women.
I am beginning to understand why Ms Brownmiller thought it was a valid view - 30+ years ago.
Well, really I’d think that pretty much ANYBODY who wrote a book about a world free of Jews and gays would probably be a huge bigot (unless it was written specifically as an awareness-raising with the intent of showing why the world would be worse without them or something along those lines) – it’s really not as interesting a question for science fiction as a world without men or women, since a world without men or women presents vastly more problems from our current world than a world without gays or Jews.
Frankly, I’m of the opinion that assuming that a work by a feminist author about a society where all the men have died is “first and foremost … the offensive product of a hateful mind” just robs the phrase of any meaning. Something like Bob Enyart’s “The First Five Days” is the offensive product of a hateful mind; “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” doesn’t come anywhere close.
And “Houston, Houston, Do You Read?” was written in 1976 - again, a very interesting time for the women’s rights movement.
It doesn’t seem awful in the Wiki link. Men have not been forcibly removed from society, it was a virus that also wiped out most women. Men were reintroduced to society by women and are included on the space mission. The women expend effort to rescue the ‘heroes’.
What’s the problem, exactly? That the author can *imagine *a world where men are not dominant? That she can imagine a world where they have to be *rescued *by women?
Brazil84, you may have to tell us the answer you want to hear, so we can work out the question you’re trying to ask.
Wait, so authors only write *fiction *which supports their own viewpoints? So Thomas Harris thinks serial killer cannibals are a good thing? Steven King believes aliens and supernatural killer clowns are among us? J.K. Rowling thinks there are wizards walking around London?
Or could it be that they’re authors, who may be inspired by their personal philosophies as a starting point and then diverge, or may be inspired by something someone else said, or they read or they dreamed. Maybe they create whole worlds and characters who are in fact nothing like them and believe and do things they’d never do. Or do you really think fiction literature is filled with nothing but Mary Sues and wish fulfillment?
No, you have to use your intelligence and common sense. The Turner Diaries is a work of fiction, but you can make a pretty good guess about the author’s viewpoint from reading it.
Here’s another one: Read the first few chapters of Hunter and then try to guess how the author feels about interracial marriage.
