Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did

[AngryAmish]

"One of the most common derisive taunts thrown at feminists – and one of the oldest – is “manhater”. It’s been around since the days of suffrage, and still gets used today, though its a pretty anodyne insult. Most feminists, like me, shun the label and work to convince people that despite the stereotypes feminists absolutely, without a doubt, do not hate men.

But so what if we did?

It’s not that I recommend hating men or think it a particularly wise use of one’s time, but to each her own. Straight white men still hold the majority of political, economic and social power in the world, and everyone else struggles to make their lives work with less. So if the worst thing that happens to a man is that a woman doesn’t like him ...well, he has it pretty damn good. It’s not as if we’re living in some sort of Wicker Man-inspired dystopia, after all.

Advertisement

Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us: mass shootings have been attributed to misogyny, and sexual and domestic violence against women is often fuelled by a hatred for women."

Read the whole thing.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men

[merrily]

1. Casting an issue in terms of hate is very telling, especially an equal rights issue.

[Orrex]

3. I'm replying because I want to come back to see the smoking crater

[daleanime]

6. Some quick work today....

[Orrex]

11. I miss him already

[daleanime]

14. But not for long....

sigh

[Orrex]

24. We've had minor flooding that messed up our bathroom drains

Keeps coming back no matter how many times we flush that disgusting stuff.

[99Forever]

4. You don't see why this is going to offend?

Or perhaps offending is your purpose?



I think there's a name for that.



Oh well.

[Adrahil]

8. How does that offend? I think your missing the point...

The point is that despite all the MRA BULLSHIT, men, and white men in particular (like myself) are not at all in the position of being threatened by "man-hating feminists." Men still dominate the world politically and economically, and will for some time to come.

[99Forever]

13. The politics of hate are offensive.

Period.

Even when you do it.

[Adrahil]

39. Again, you MISSED THE POINT.

It's not about supporting man-hating.

It's about MRA tools who attempt to invalidate the feminist movement over claims that somehow man-hating feminists are so much worse than systematized sexism in out culture.

The two are NOT the same and not even CLOSE to being equivalent. It's like the tools to who try to impose oppressive voter ID laws because because of "voter fraud."

It's a false equivalency. It's a an excuse, not a reason.

[99Forever]

43. I didn't "miss" anything.

You are singing the gospel of Hate.

It's offensive.

[Adrahil]

46. How in the world am I doing that?

I will say you seem to have some dude called "name removed" who seems to agree with you!

I suppose you think those awful Ferguson protesters are oppressing the police with their "hate" as well, eh?

[99Forever]

48. Angry much?

[nomorenomore08]

109. And you're not?

[seabeyond]

87. lol... feminist should walk away from all the issues of discrimination against women, to only

address the all?

[JustAnotherGen]

107. +1

The very idea is bananas to me sea!

[nomorenomore08]

111. No, entitled MRA assholes are hurting the image of feminists.

Most feminists don't remotely "hate men," and those who do are a mostly powerless fringe.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

135. Any movement can have an element of lunatic fringe.

Most feminists don't remotely "hate men," and those who do are a mostly powerless fringe.

[nomorenomore08]

148. And yet that "lunatic fringe" is always used to try and discredit the entire movement.

Look at the Ferguson protestors and the very few (likely from "outside&quot who chanted "Kill the police!" or whatever. The entire protest movement was conflated with them by the right-wing media.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

153. yes, and above in this thread the same thing is happening in an exchange

between I and another poster.

I hope that I have educated him because he is trying to suggest that very thing about fem/radfem.

Personally, I define a feminist as a woman who has not yet become "radical" enough to voice her discontent with the status quo.

YMMV.

[smirkymonkey]

118. +1000

[NutmegYankee]

20. So that's why you troll this board?

You're a complete failure in life. Bye Bye racist troll.

[OKNancy]

21. Library girl just doesn't do it for him I guess

[NutmegYankee]

22. ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. LOL ...

"Coffee spill on Couch 3 ... Coffee spill on Couch 3 ..."

[uppityperson]

137. well

[Ptah]

25. bye bye

[NutmegYankee]

26. LOL.

And another one bites the dust...

[Ptah]

31. Clue: you are not welcome here

[greatauntoftriplets]

32. That one was fast!

[OKNancy]

33. smile

[greatauntoftriplets]

34. ...

[hfojvt]

35. here's a point, or two

Those are other men.

All of Bill Gates power and wealth does NOT trickle down to me just because we are both white males.

From the 2002 census of wealth
81.777 million white non-hispanic households - 16,600,000 of them with less than $5,000 in net worth.

Those 16.6 million white people don't rule the world. Quite the opposite - they are at the bottom of society.

19.3 million males households - 6,560,000 of them with less that $5,000 in net worth

Again, those males do not rule the world. Bill Gates does not pick them up in his private jet for free trips to Hawaii, or even co-sign loans for them.

And "threatened". Well, it is not a threat, but suppose you were part of a group which periodically said basically "we hate white men". Does that give you a "hey, I am a valued and respected member of this group" feeling?

But then let's go to policy. Many on DU just LOVE immigrants. We applaud this recent executive order by the greatest President of our lifetime. Hurrah for immigrants. Let's promote and applaud policies that help immigrants.

Meanwhile any white male who is unemployed, or underemployed, might get the feeling that they are not important to us. That if our candidates get elected they might see a bunch of policies which favor other groups, and ignore white males.

Well, ignore them except for the periodic finger wagging about how privileged white males are, and how therefore it is okay to hate them.

BTW, did you hear that a majority of white males voted against their self interest by voting for Romney?

Or did I say that backwards?

A minority of white males voted against their self interest by voting for Obama.

[Adrahil]

40. Who said it's Okay?

Stop being so defensive and actually READ what is being said.

And I am a white man, and am not self-loathing.

[hfojvt]

42. "it wouldn't matter if we did"

that looks like an OK to me

Whether you are self loathing, it seems like you jumped right in to say "it is not offensive to say it is okay to hate white males".

It's not self loathing because you only hate the white males who don't say it is okay to hate whitre males.

You know - the defensive ones who don't know how to read.

THOSE people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

98. Good point.

Just because a person is a white male, does not mean they necessarily have money and power. One could argue that white males are oppressed into certain roles by our system. Everyone is pushed into a certain role by gender, class and race. Angela Davis writes about this.

That being said, yes, white men do hold the vast majority of power in our society. Some white men, but not all white men.

[Smarmie Doofus]

136. Not even very many white men.

>>>Some white men, but not all white men. >>>>>

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. If not you, then to whom does Bill Gates' wealth trickle?

Men and boys? (35 hits) or women and girls? (362 hits)

Since men die younger of every preventable cause, and since boys are doing horribly in school... and since two of the Gates foundation main areas of interest is improving healthcare and education, this should be surprising, should it not?

[mercuryblues]

60. There

are some people who find pointing out and talking about facts are more offensive than the actual fact.

Even if a woman does really hate men. Make that a thousand women. What are their chances to rise to a level in society, politically and economically to effectively make their beliefs main stream?

But if an agenda can be pushed that ALL feminist hate men, you create the illusion that all women are hateful, untrustworthy, vindictive creatures and should never hold any position of power. When feminist fight against that power structure "you hate men".

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. LOL ...

Bingo ...

"But ... But ... We want to be like AND keep our institutional power!"

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. So self-justified haters should dominate the world instead? n/t

[msanthrope]

36. OMG..someone at DU posted something offensive!! Call Congress, right fucking now! nt

[NuclearDem]

7. And another one.

[Divernan]

12. Results of alert on Mufrou comment.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

insensitive, over the top

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 15, 2015, 09:58 AM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Swing, and a miss. Great start.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Mufrou has no established history or credentials on Du. It is his/her very first post. Now if Mufrou had quoted several Guardian readers specific replies using the phrase "utter trash" or sayig feminists are disconnected from reality. I would have let his/her comment stand as part of the thread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: let him explain himself ....... its only a matter of time
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: MIRT anti -fem/racist troll is back.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NutmegYankee]

18. Bye bye!

[B Calm]

152. Any idea

how many trolls this thread caught? Just saw this post this morning and said wow look at all the tombstones!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

156. seriously! now I'm all curious!

Looks like I missed the festivities.


Aw, shucks.

[trumad]

9. uh oh...

Now you've done it...the trumpets a blaring and the MRA brigade will soon be here.

[hfojvt]

10. ah how nice

an article trying to justify hatred and double standards

What a waste of effort.

And not even a very good effort

"Straight white men still hold the majority of political, economic and social power in the world, and everyone else struggles to make their lives work with less."

Yep, uh-huh, there's no such thing as a straight white male who has low income. Or a non-straight white male who has higher income.

"Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us: mass shootings have been attributed to misogyny, and sexual and domestic violence against women is often fuelled by a hatred for women.""

Yeah, pretty sure that is not true either. That, in fact, most men are not doing any killing, and most women are not being killed. Here's a thought though - if a man had written a dumb article like Jessica Valenti did, he would have been excoriated for "hating women" even though his dumb article would have NO larger impact than perhaps - hurting somebody's feelings.

Funny how that works.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

37. funny how statistics work.

They're not about individual experience. Their purpose is to help us see trends.


You may apologise to women as a group, as it would be the right thing to do.

[hfojvt]

45. apparently their purpose is

to help us make blanket statements that say

"if it is true for 50.01% of X then it is true for X"

Yeah, I don't buy it.

And when it comes to training in statistics, it is likely that I, myself, am two standard deviations above the mean.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

84. so you can throw around jargon. doesn't nullify bell curves.

Sounds like you're throwing the word "blanket statement" around to try and intimidate.

As if population samples don't show the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by men, or that that is even more overwhelmingly true for perpetrators of violence against women.

As if surveys of women don't show that 1:3 women have experienced gender specific abuse from men.

As if the percentage of women who have experienced everyday sexism doesn't approach +infinity.

[mercuryblues]

51. And you would be

missing the pint of the article.

There are plenty of men who equate feminism as nothing more than "hating men" feminists want equal pay=hating men.


feminazi ring a bell? There are men out there who think that feminism is all about bringing men down, not raising women up. What I find intriguing is the idea that the men who do define feminism as hating men and bringing them down are really saying we don't want to be treated as badly as we treat women.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

97. ^^^ this^^^

"We don't want to be treated as badly as we treat women."

Right there.

[smirkymonkey]

119. Thank YOU!

This is exactly it. So many men think that pointing out injustice = hating men. It's really getting tiresome and I think it mostly comes from men who actually do hate women and treat them badly and are afraid that women are coming to get their revenge. It's probably their own guilt that's really eating at them.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

157. an inchoate guilt.

I don't think there's enough awareness going on for them to be consciously running from guilt.

More like a simmering rage over Those Other People Who Make Me Mad!!!! (If the object of their rage is female, add: and they make me tingly, and I WANT IT!)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. I think hate is dangerous

Men and women each make up 50% of the population such a clear anti-majority evinces the fundamental cooperation needed for promoting the respect due to all. Any action lacking that respect is likely counterproductive.

Worldwide it seems obvious that there is no more effective unifying spirit than the identification of a common enemy. That said, IMHO, there isn't much that's more problematic than the philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

YMMV

[mercuryblues]

150. the

point is that when feminists say the men are instrumental in combating rape, the backlash is almost always: you are saying it is only men who rape. Don't you know women also rape, why don't you address that? YOU HATE MEN. Why do you say men? Not ALL MEN are like that- you hate men. Discuss the DV stats = women also abuse, why don't you discuss that and what can be done about that? Because, you guessed it "you hate men." You didn't say that nice enough, you must hate men.

The article addresses the absurdity of these claims. She even admitted that yes, some women do hate men. But apparently that is not good enough. She hates men. Why? Because she also pointed out that even if they do, women do not have the power structure behind them to cause men harm. Hell, they can't even get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

[cwydro]

27. This should go well.

[cali]

28. It's not that the author of this doesn't have a point,

and she's largely correct in that women hating men (in a general way) doesn't produce the same societal ills, but hate is never something that should be considered harmless.

[Adrahil]

47. Did you read the whole article?

'Cause that's not really what it's about.

[jonno99]

54. Agreed. I think the teaching of hate in any form - be it racism,

class-ism, or sexism - is despicable.

my two cents...

[dawg]

29. Not ...

the bees.

[Android3.14]

41. What hfojvt said

So much wrong with this article, and so unhelpful in achieving the supposed goals of the author.

[romanic]

50. The only feminists

I would describe as man haters are the radical feminists. They look at me, a gay man, as a misogynistic pariah for not finding women sexually attractive and accuse me and other gay men of denying women the "right" of procreating females. They also hate transpeople, older men, and other women who suffer from "internalized misogyny" for not agreeing with they're crazy views.

I don't think most feminists hate men at all, just those that actively discriminate against women.

[seabeyond]

53. brush up on the definition of rad fem.

Radical feminism is a philosophy emphasizing the patriarchal roots of inequality between men and women, or, more specifically, social dominance of women by men. Radical feminism views patriarchy as dividing rights, privileges and power primarily by gender, and as a result oppressing women and privileging men.

Radical feminists tend to be more militant in their approach (radical as "getting to the root&quot than other feminists are. Radical feminism opposes existing political and social organization in general because it is inherently tied to patriarchy. Thus, radical feminists tend to be skeptical of political action within the current system, and instead tend to focus on culture change that undermines patriarchy and associated hierarchical structures.

Radical feminism opposes patriarchy, not men. To equate radical feminism to man-hating is to assume that patriarchy and men are inseparable, philosophically and politically.

[geek tragedy]

70. Most radical feminists subscribe to none of those views. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

76. how many rad fems do you know in real life. face to face contact on a semi-regular basis.

[romanic]

99. Didn't expect to see many replies on my post.

I don't know how many generations are within the rad fem circle, but the stuff i was talking about relates to some rad fem postings on tumblr. Just search "gay men misogyny" and you'll see the articles.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

134. did you really just reply to yourself with advice for those of us who did try to engage you in

honest conversation? really? w0w.

[romanic]

142. Wow what?

I was just elaborating what I've seen and read from some rad fems regarding gay men. Admittedly it's not as bad as the mudslinging some rad fems have slung towards transgendered people, I mean there's even a term for: TERF.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

144. and I suggest to you that TERF is the lunatic fringe of rad fem.

And is not at all indicative of rad fem philosophy. please read seabeyond's reply to you above in this thread.

One will find a lunatic fringe hanging on/around any/all ideologies/philosophies/movements.

radfem seeks inclusivity and diversity and is for human rights for all world wide.

do not conflate TERF with radfem, please.

[romanic]

146. You're right.

Every movement has an extreme fringe, I just assumed that rad fems were the fringe itself. I'll do some research, but the fact that a fringe like THAT exists and says things about other marginalized groups is messed up.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

147. You do realize that can be said of any group, right? Crazy has no boundaries.

[AverageJoe90]

104. This, largely.

Unfortunately, despite these folks being a minority, they've been vocal enough to do some real damage to feminism's image.....and that only exacerbated by not enough reasonable feminists(yes, even a few of the radicals are *somewhat* reasonable) doing enough to speak out about this, or even at all.....which only helps feed the right-wing disinfo machine. It's a terribly vicious cycle.

(and for those who don't get it yet, why don't you look at how many people are now hesitating to call themselves feminist these days, even if many agree with at least some feminist ideas?).

[NRaleighLiberal]

52. You've gotten the attention of the prolific "name removed" that's for sure!

[guillaumeb]

55. It all comes down to divide and conquer

Divide men from women,
divide by skin color,
divide by nationality,
divide by language,
divide by religion,
divide by ages.

I agree with much of what has been written, but I feel that the point is being missed. why is there such division?

All arbitrary. All designed to divide the bottom 99% against each other so the top 1% can continue to rule. The goal of the 1% is always to exploit the bottom 99%.

How do we as a society educate people to recognize this truth?

[boston bean]

56. bologne, wealth equity does NOT eradicate racism/sexism/anti-semitism/homophobia or any other ism.

Those are social issue separate from wealth.

[guillaumeb]

58. I said nothing about wealth equity

my point was that these divisions do not reflect any essential difference between people. They are arbitrary labels assigned to divide people.

Hatred has no point other than to encourage anger, which discourages thinking.

I am a white male. What, other than pigment and Y chromosome do I have in common with the Walton family? Nothing. But I am told by much of society that I am not as rich as the Waltons because of:
blacks,
Mexicans,
gays,
women,
Arabs,
(or whatever other label you wish to use)

taking what I should have. This misdirection by the 1% is what I am speaking about.

In my opinion, equality will only be achieved if all people recognize their common humanity, and only if all people recognize that if I oppress others I am ultimately oppressing myself.

[boston bean]

62. right, and recognizing the persons who do not have white skin or a Y chromosomes as equals

would go a long way toward that goal.

Sorry to the see the point flies right over your head. But if there is a reason for these struggles.

[guillaumeb]

65. possibly we both missed our respective points

discrimination is a huge problem. A world wide problem. People have to recognize that we all live on this planet together and division based on sex, or color, or language, or national origin is counterproductive and could be fatal.

Clear enough?

[Maedhros]

68. From what I read:

In my opinion, equality will only be achieved if all people recognize their common humanity, and only if all people recognize that if I oppress others I am ultimately oppressing myself.

It looks like he got the point just fine.

[boston bean]

69. you left off something no?

All arbitrary. All designed to divide the bottom 99% against each other so the top 1% can continue to rule. The goal of the 1% is always to exploit the bottom 99%.

How do we as a society educate people to recognize this truth?

I don't think it's arbitrary at all, and my point to the poster was that wealth equity does not eradicate bigotries.

So, I got his point just fine.

[Maedhros]

71. It seems he was speaking more generally about the divide-and-conquer strategy. [n/t]

[boston bean]

72. The "divide and conquer strategy" is used many times

to diminish the cause of bigotries, as if money would solve those problems.

That is my point and made to the poster and now to you as well.

Speaking/working against racism/sexism/homophobia, railing against it is not divisive, except for those who want to keep the status quo.

[Maedhros]

140. In general I agree with you: racists, sexists and homophobes deserve all the criticism they receive.

Last edited Mon Mar 16, 2015, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

However there is some room for debate with regard to the idea that it's OK for some feminists to hate men.

I dated a woman with whom I had an extended discussion of feminism. She related one school of feminist thought that held that it is necessary for an oppressed class (e.g. women) to turn the tables on their former oppressors in order to achieve true equality. My thought has always been that this idea is self-defeating and only serves to prolong the conflict between oppressor and oppressed. I put forth the idea that it is more productive to strive to remove oppression from the equation.

The OP seeks, if not to justify, but to condone the conflict between genders. I believe that a better approach is to strive to end the conflict.

That said, I do understand that the conflict derives from centuries of patriarchal bullshit, and that women have had this conflict imposed upon them. Indeed, I do not begrudge the OP for her perspective on the conflict. I simply think that it is more productive to avoid an "Us vs. Them" narrative.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Maybe I misunderstand te phenomena you are addressing ...

but, it would seem it is not the Blacks, Hispanics, LGBT community, women, speaking on inequality/fighting for equality thatare the tools of the 1%'s divide and conquer campaign; but rather, those non-Blacks, non-Hispanics, non-LGBT community, non-women, that cry division whenever Blacks, Hispanics, LGBT community, women speak on inequality and/or fight for equality.

It would seem those non-Blacks, non-Hispanics, non-LGBT community, non-women, that cry division are consistently speaking to the wrong audience ... and don't realize it.

[boston bean]

74. The issue is many, happen to be, white males

like to think of feminism as divisive and will use the 99% of us lowlies are all on equal footing cause we don't have as much money as the 1%. Without recognizing the divisions that already exist and that working to lessen those division through equality are not what is divisive and divides us in the first place.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Same with race and LGBT and all other non-white male groups ...

we recognize that inherent in the 1% argument is an acceptance of OUR status quo.

[boston bean]

83. A-yup! 100% AGREE!

[Bluenorthwest]

88. !!!!!

Yes indeed....

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. But that's okay because ...

they will get around to working on our status quo concerns, just as soon as WE get them rich ... they promise!

[Number23]

117. That is one HELL of a point. But are you sure about your last point?

It would seem those non-Blacks, non-Hispanics, non-LGBT community, non-women, that cry division are consistently speaking to the wrong audience ... and don't realize it.

Are you sure about that?? Because without fail, every single person I've seen whining about discussions and efforts to confront racism/sexism/homophobia/and other forms of discrimination has been the same folks that give less than a damn about ANY of these things in the first place. They make it plain as day that the ONLY thing that matters are economic issues because they affect them, dammit!

That whole "the 1% wants to keep us divided" bullshit is just a convenient excuse. I don't believe for one second that anyone that espouses the belief that economic matters trump social justice give a flying damn about anyone but themselves.

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Can't I give folks the benefit of the doubt ...

that they don't give me?

[Number23]

129. !

[Silent3]

81. People can generate more than enough prejudice on their own...

...without a conspiracy of the rich and powerful plotting and scheming to make it so.

Do such divisions get exploited by the powerful? Sure, they can be. Might some prejudices be fostered and exacerbated? That probably happens too.

But if you're imagining we'd all be full of neighborly love and compassion, paragons of equality and acceptance, were it not for those meddling 1%-ers, you're living in a cartoon world.

[guillaumeb]

89. It sometimes seems like a cartoon world

what with Sarah Palin, Tom Cotton and assorted other lunatics being treated by the media as legitimate sources. But no, I do not feel that all prejudice can be laid at the feet of the 1%. What I actually said was that prejudice is used by the 1% to divide. Divide and conquer is the practice and always has been for all of recorded history. The 1% will use whatever tools they need to do the job.

But if we do not imagine a world where people can live together, is that not an admission that we cannot? I prefer hope, tempered with a dose of reality. But I hope that someday we can live together free from division and feel that we must all work toward that goal.

[Dont call me Shirley]

57. Hatred against groups of people is used to oppress for use of power over another.

Humanity needs to stop playing this silly deadly game of power over others.

Oppressors need to learn this: WE ARE ALL EQUAL!

[Nye Bevan]

61. I can totally see hating Todd Akin, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.

Not so much Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, John Kerry and Howard Dean.

The problem to me seems to be the reluctance of some to use the word "some".

[LittleBlue]

66. Googled the author and this pic came up

Doesn't look like a Photoshop either

A walking stereotype

[KittyWampus]

78. I am laughing at that- it's way over the top but still funny. Intentionally provocative, for sure.

[bettyellen]

80. You do understand she is mocking the concept of "man haters", right?

Is that just flying over everyone's head or what?

[nomorenomore08]

112. Not to mention guys who think that one time a woman was mean to them, invalidates feminism.

Sort of like saying a stubbed toe is worse than a broken leg.

[bettyellen]

114. Yup. If an African American gives you a dirty look,it is held out as proof that racism cuts both

Ways around here. It's kind of crazy, but you see this crap here all the time.
Sad how many men seem frightened of feminism when it could improve their lives so much too.

[smirkymonkey]

120. It's Jessica Valenti, she lives to be provacative.

Take it with a grain of salt

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. Provocative of what, exactly?

What is she intending to provoke?

[smirkymonkey]

123. Do you read the Guardian?

She's all about controversy and click-bait.

[uppityperson]

138. Here's the caption "I took a special picture for all the misogynist whiners in my feed today."

I took a special picture for all the misogynist whiners in my feed today.
https://twitter.com/jessicavalenti/status/494591618519805953


I had to look down a couple pages on her name images to find this. Most are like this one for many many lines of images.

[romanic]

143. She looks like an idiot.

.

[hughee99]

67. They have words for hatred for a group of people based on gender, race, religion, orientation,

and other factors, and usually they're not complimentary. The sort of people that express such hatred are rarely considered sympathetic characters and usually find it difficult to get most people to even listen to their argument, let alone support their cause.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. There is a difference between saying ...

"Feminists hate males" (what the anti-feminist men groups say) and "So what IF feminists actually hate males."

[hughee99]

93. There is, and if feminists hated males

They would find it near impossible to get anyone to listen to their issues or support them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

103. "A difference"? Brevity, perhaps.

At a bare minimum, accepting the feminist/patriarchal paradigm at face value, vocal and proud hatred of the dominant group is a recipe for continued marginalization.

"So what if we hate white people?" - Martin Luther King, Jr.

[1StrongBlackMan]

108. I'm not getting you MLK reference. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

115. Martin Luther King has a national holiday because he helped white people to understand...

... the inhuman nature of segregation and racism. He did it by appealing to people's better nature.

If I believed that the situation with women today is analagous to the oppression faced by blacks in 1965, I would emulate his example and wouldn't touch the sentiment expressed by the OP with a 10 foot pole.

Of course, if the opposite were true - and I believed that my in-group wasn't oppressed at all, I would do exactly as Jessica Valenti advocates.

In fact, "so what if we hate men?" is a useful paradigm only if men have zero power or inclination to reciprocate - a statement I would accept as true.

... which is a final nail in the coffin of "ubiquitous patriarchy" as a mechanism to understand society.

"So what if we hate men" is a succinct proof that gender equality can only be found in a rear-view mirror.

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. I'm glad that is the message you received from Dr. King ...

But if you could make that quote sarcastically, I suspect that if you studied a little more you would likely not be happy.

Dr. King was far more a revolutionary and placed more blame/responsibility, than most here know or wish to acknowledge.

[guillaumeb]

130. reading for comprehension

is a lost art. Far too many here read what they wish to see and respond. Thanks for carefully reading.

[Spiggitzfan]

79. Feminists don't...

Feminists don't subserve themselves to men. For misogynists, like the current "Men's Rights" groups trying to portray themselves as simple advocates for men instead of groups where trolls go to bond over their hatred of all the females who have rejected them, ...for them our refusal to devote our lives to serving them & propping up their fragile egos is all it takes to earn the label "manhater".
I guess a "manhater" is a woman who likes a kind gentle man who treats her as a respected equal, & whom she can respect in return, instead of the insults, violence, & condescension misogynists prefer. What horrible people we are.

[KG]

85. Kick to the Rec,

to the rec, rec, rec.

[daredtowork]

95. Wow the amount of "Name Removed" on this thread...

Just goes to show what women still have to deal with.

By the way, the article left out "nerd shaming" - that seems to be the new MRA tactic for victim equivalence against the "social justice warriors".

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. I demand equality... and the right to hate my enemies yet be loved in return.

"But it wouldn't matter if we did"? If it were true that men control all centers of power, it wouldn't matter to them.

Hate doesn't beget respect, that's why not.

[geek tragedy]

106. when someone drops the "man hating feminist" card they're outing themselves as an ignorant jackass

with regressive views on gender.

[smirkymonkey]

122. Bingo!

They are really outing themselves.

[Starry Messenger]

110. I don't think you are "we"

[nomorenomore08]

113. "Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us:

mass shootings have been attributed to misogyny, and sexual and domestic violence against women is often fuelled by a hatred for women.

That’s why it’s so hard to take seriously any claims that “misandry” is a tremendous problem – they’re based on the idea that merely insulting men is similar to the life-threatening misogyny women face worldwide."

All the people arguing over the opening paragraph seem to have missed this part.

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. So what's the relationship?

How much will dialing up the man-hate reduce the incidence of violent misogyny?

Certainly the quote in your subject represents something logically useful, right?

[smirkymonkey]

124. Yes, that there is no equivalence.

How hard is that to understand? As a white person, I can understand why people of color are angry and resentful about racism and I am not defensive about that. What is the problem with men? Why can't they understand why women might have a problem with the oppressive treatment they have undergone?

[nomorenomore08]

131. That accusing feminists (mainstream ones at least) of "man-hate" is kind of ridiculous

when so many genuinely hateful men do grave (and even lethal) harm to so many women.

I mean, to give just one example, where's the feminist equivalent of Paul Elam endorsing wife-beating?

[lumberjack_jeff]

141. What a catch-22 you've set up.

I could quote hateful rhetoric from not only rank and file self-identified feminists, but from their leadership.

The response to which is, predictably, "But they're oppressed! They say these things to get awareness to the cause!". Unlike say, Paul Elam who by turns is marginal, ineffective and an object of curiosity and at the very same time, the vanguard of a vast violent masculinist patriarchal conspiracy.

Are there feminists and misogynists who believe that violence and hatred are useful and justified? Undoubtedly. I will observe one thing however, unlike the reverse, no one here proudly claims misogynists are their nightly reading material.

Can you please provide a link to Elam endorsing wife beating?

[nomorenomore08]

149. Elam was just the first "major" MRA I could think of. And identifying Solanas with mainstream

feminism is disingenuous to say the least.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Elam

"Elam also once wrote that October should become "Bash a Violent Bitch Month". [12][13] The notion behind this was that male survivors of domestic violence should "beat the living shit" out of their abusers and then... well, that seems to be about it. Elam then went on to state: "I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess." We'll leave it up to you to decide whether Elam was appropriating the experiences of male survivors of domestic abuse as an excuse for his own violent fantasies or actively trying to help them with this. He went on to say that he wasn't serious but..."

That kind of sadism goes well beyond self-defense, if you ask me.

I just find it strange how you're all up in arms about feminists supposedly "hating men" when men rape and murder women at rates vastly higher than the reverse.

[Kurska]

125. So is it okay to irrationally hate black men or gay men, because they are men?

Or just "straight white men".

I ask this as a gay man, I want to know if i'm supposed to be okay with the idea someone might hate me because I have a penis or will it just be other people who will be hated for having a penis?

[nomorenomore08]

132. Where the hell are you getting this from?

She explicitly said that "man-hating" is not a good or productive thing to do.

Did you even read the article past the headline?

[Kurska]

154. It’s not that I recommend hating men or think it a particularly wise use of one’s time,

"but to each their own".

Yeah no, imagine that statement applied to any other group of people. I have enough irrational hatred in my life for being a gay man. Someone hating me because I'm a man is not an "to each their own" type of situation.

Hating anyone because of something they can't control makes you despicable human being, end of discussion. I don't care if you don't have the "social power" to do the same amount of damage, hate is hate.

[UTUSN]

126. Please. "all" men don't kill women. All men aren't evil. All women ain't good. Nobody is either. n/t

[nomorenomore08]

133. Of course not. But arguably, just being "good" isn't enough.

To put it in the simplest terms, the good people have to actually do something to counteract the bad people. Otherwise they're kind of useless.

[davidn3600]

155. It's not easy to do that these days...

If you are a man who is really putting himself out there for women's rights and such... you'll get attacked by all sides. Other men will call you "gay" or a "pussy." And then you will be attacked by radical feminists who suspect you are only favoring such rights so you can get closer to women and have sex with them. OR you get accused of being just another male trying to steal the spotlight from women.

"White knights" I believe is the term that is frequently applied.

So I can't blame the nice guys when they finally say "ah, fuck it" and go back to their video games. I also can't blame young women today who say they are "not a feminist" because they find it too negative to be associated with it.

Feminism isn't exactly a welcoming movement. There is a lot of internal fighting and a lot of radicals (such as the author of the op's article) that do far more harm than good. Everyone is obsessively paranoid about each other's motives. It's ridiculous and a surprise the movement gets anything done at all.

[uppityperson]

139. k&r for an interesting article and for wishing more responders would have actually read it.

[booley]

145. face palming at some of the responses here

I mean I am guy and even I got the point.

Things are not equal.

Being thin skinned and being denied rights as a person are NOT the the same. Indeed, those focusing on hate are really missing the point.

It's not just the hate. Indeed open hostility is a very small part of it. The real problem is the real world consequences that come from inequality. Hate means very little without the power to act on it.

In fact if you think about it hatred often comes when people try to address that inequality, not the other way around. Certainly the vast majority of bigots I have seen would say they have no hatred for the people they think inferior.. as long as those people "know their place".

Which just gets worse when we institutionalize this inequality. The bigotry becomes ingrained. Even people who by rights should be resisting end up reinforcing the inequality because "thats how things are". We get all the problems of bigotry without the actual bigots.

So maybe many here should stop being so thin skinned and consider.. if your situation really as bad or worse then it is for millions of others because of their gender or race or religion or whatever?

[B Calm]

151. Great post! How many right wing trolls did it catch?