So, when you said, “Or Gandhi,” you were agreeing with Little Nemo’s post?
Agreed.
The OP can be paraphrased as “I read the feminist lunatic fringe on reddit. But I mistakenly (or deliberately) think they’re the mainstream of feminism, not the fringe. Therefore, to heck with them all, their entire movement, and I take especial umbrage that they are so hostile to men’s issues.”
At least a few of us have tried to point out his entire problem stems from his assuming the extremists are the mainstream. Whether that’s through ignorance, inattention, or bad faith.
Isn’t that often the case for any movement? The extremists are generally the loudest, the most noticed, and the least representative of the other members of the movement.
It seems that the terrible misreading of @MrDibble’s post was mine.
There are all kinds of radical feminists. I’ve read some Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly, but not their entire oeuvre. In the chapters and essays I read, they didn’t have anything kind to say about men, and they came across very broad-brusheriffic to me. Which, whatever.
But I’ve also read bell hooks, and some Marxist feminists whose names I forget, and they were much more interested in feminism as a movement that centers the experiences of women but that involves everyone.
Dworkin isn’t, IMO, more radical than hooks, just more awful.
I’m going to lead clarifications here.
First, even though men may ask women for this sort of help more often than women ask men, and may theoretically may ask women for help more often than they ask men, I think that women ask women for help far more often than men ask women for help. So in terms of overall burden it doesn’t make sense that men are particularly problematic.
There are several compounding factors. It is possible that men assume that a particular woman has more emotional carrying capacity than she actually does. The man goes to a woman for emotional support by default, perhaps he even knows men that would be better suited for such a task, but he goes to a woman because he thinks all women have equal carrying capacities and they don’t. Whereas a woman asking another woman for help may be more savvy about which women can or will help her and which ones won’t.
The other possibility is that the woman does indeed have capacity, but the fact that it’s a man asking for help changes the dynamic. It’s possible that some men might use such a scenario improperly. It’s also possible that even if all men are gentlemen in such a scenario, the woman is still not comfortable with the dynamic, she doesn’t want to see men that way.
Excellent post. I think I’d add that the existence of extremists in a cause doesn’t even necessarily invalidate the position of the extremists. Sometimes a desperate disease requires a dangerous cure. Not always like that, but sometimes the extremists are the ones actually getting things to move - Rosa Parks for example, was a lawbreaker (the law was unjust)
No, I was pointing out the silliness of their reductio ad Donaldus.
Which is very true when you have the men in positions of power:
When you have male managers/CEOs/presidents/etc. pressuring female employees/interns for sex.
When you have a male mayor asking a female protection officer if they pole dance making her change positions (and then getting re-elected).
When you have male managers repeatedly refusing to listen to suggestions made by any female employee.
When you have male CEOs that know that there is a pay gap in their company and their solution is to (illegally) tell employees they cannot discuss their pay.
Now I’m not even talking about the subconscious microaggressions that occur all of the time that men refuse to acknowledge they do. These are just the ones that by any objective observation nyone would say, “That’s messed up with a capital F. How can they not know what they are doing?”
I honestly have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I suspect that it’s orthogonal to the questions of this thread, which are about why some feminists prioritize women’s issues. And why that’s OKAY.
I’ll admit I misunderstood the point MrDibble was making. That said, I stand by what I said in my response. You shouldn’t judge the morality of a cause by how much it benefits you personally.
True, but to be fair, the racism that pervaded Gandhi’s early perspectives became far less salient, and eventually explicitly rejected, in his later career.
Over time, he figured out that anti-Black racism—along with other forms of bigotry that didn’t disadvantage him personally (such as discrimination against “untouchables” or Dalits in Indian society)—was just part and parcel of the same bigotry involved in white colonial oppression of Indians, and it was all harmful bullshit.
I don’t think that kind of moral evolutionary arc is realistically comparable to the persistent unwavering focus on self-interested greed that we see in the life of Donald Trump.
I plead ignorance and inattention. Also I’m pretty stupid so it seems that what I personally might feel as needlessly antagonistic or extreme often actually isn’t. This thread certainly has provided some evidence towards that conclusion. I should probably just shut up and listen and try to learn and understand more, for mine and everyone else’s sake.
Sorry if I upset anyone.
I apologize as well. My characterization of your post came off as more hostile than I intended.
For darn sure the internet has a lot of hotheads who love to make noise online that they’d never do face-to-face. Doesn’t much matter what the topic is. SO ultimately each of us needs to decide how much to discount as anonymous bravado and how much represents honestly felt attitudes.
As well, as someone said a few posts ago, as a rule the extremists are the loudest and therefore the most obvious.
Are you right to be put off by extremist feminists? Probably. And extremist Rightists. And extremist Leftists. And extremist Racists.
Some -isms have very little to recommend them. Others have a lot more. After you (any you) successfully discount the extremists.
I’m not even convinced it’s the extremism that’s the problem. If someone’s real moderate in their hatred and contempt, that’s way worse than being a radical advocate of justice and respect. Give me the Black Panthers over the Citizens’ Councils any day.
If that’s the case, then the whole 'quit relying on women to provide you comfort [during a funeral] loses a whole lot of rage inducing vitriol. And see…0 - 1000 mph with the ‘hugs are only about sexual attraction being toxic’ thing there.
It sounds like a mix of ‘don’t hug people that don’t want to hug you, and be perceptive enough to figure that out.’
Huh? Didn’t this start with a question of why men can’t hug other men for comfort, or am i confusing threads?
Jumping in and making hugs sexual in this thread seems gross.
If you didn’t read the whole thread carefully there was a short digression about men wanting to hug semi-random women for less than pure motives. Under cover of seeking sympathy for emotional upset.
It didn’t go very far, but the topic was broached. yes, it’s a hijack relative to the topic of this thread.
You mean, when he no longer had to live in country that had Black people in it? Yeah, such a shift…
You didn’t make a statement about morality you made a statement about importance. Not the same thing. One can choose to tackle less morally-significant, but more-impactful-to-oneself, problems first, without that being itself a moral failing.
I disagree. There’s no way to objectively measure how important an issue is. So when a person decides how important they feel an issue is, they’re making a moral decision. If I say that I feel that reforming the police is a more important issue than banning animal testing, I am making a statement about my morality.