Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
History of Feminism
In reply to the discussion: If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? [View all]boston bean
(36,221 posts)8. I think you may be missing something here...
from the article:
Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?
I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!
Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as wellin its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.
Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?
Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.
Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.
I wish, more than anything, that I could just be a "humanist." Oh, man, that would be amazing! Because that would mean that we lived in a magical world where all humans were born on equal footing, and maybe I could live in a house shaped like a big mushroom and birds would help me get dressed or something. Humanism is a gorgeous dream, and something to strive for. In fact, it is the exact thing that feminism is striving for right now (and has been working on for decades)! Yay, feminism!
Unfortunately, the reason that "fem" is a part of the word "feminism" is that the world is not, currently, an equal, safe, and just place for women (and other groups as wellin its idealized form, intersectional feminism seeks to correct all those imbalances). To remove the gendered implications of the term is to deny that those imbalances exist, and you can't make problems disappear just by changing "feminism" to "humanism" and declaring the world healed. That won't work.
Think of it like this. Imagine you're reading a Dr. Seuss book about a bunch of beasts living on an island. There are two kinds of beasts: Fleetches and Flootches. (Stick with me here! I love you!) Though the two are functionally identical in terms of intellect and general competence, Fleetches are in charge of pretty much everything. They hold the majority of political positions, they make the most money (beast-bucks!), they dominate the beast media, they enact all kinds of laws infringing on the bodily autonomy of Flootches. Individually, most of them are perfectly nice beasts, but collectively they benefit comfortably from inequalities that are historically entrenched in the power structure of Beast Island. So, from birth, even the most unfortunate Fleetches encounter fewer institutional roadblocks and greater opportunity than almost all Flootches, regardless of individual merit. One day, a group of Flootches (the ones who have not internalized their inferiority) get together and decide to agitate to change that system. They call their movement "Flootchism," because it is specifically intended to address problems that disproportionately disadvantage Flootches while benefiting Fleetches. That makes sense, right?
Now imagine that, in response, a bunch of Fleetches begin complaining that Flootchism doesn't address their needs, and they have problems too, and therefore the movement should really be renamed Beastism. To be fair. The problem with that name change is that it that undermines the basic mission of the movement, because it obscures (deliberately, I'd warrant) that beast society is inherently weighted against Flootches. It implies that all problems are just beast problems, and that all beasts suffer comparably, which cripples the very necessary effort to prioritize and repair problems that are Flootch-specific. Those problems are a priority because they harm all Flootches, systematically, whereas Fleetch problems merely harm individual Fleetches. To argue that all problems are just "beast problems" is to discredit the idea of inequality altogether. It is, in fact, insulting.
Or, if you didn't like that one, here's another ridiculous metaphor: When women say things like "misandry isn't real," we mean it the same way you might say, "Freddy Krueger isn't real." The idea of Freddy Krueger is real, Freddy Krueger absolutely has the power to scare you, and if you suspend your disbelief it's almost plausible to blame all of the unsolved knife-crime in the world on Freddy Krueger. Additionally, it is totally possible for some rando to dress up like Freddy Krueger and start murdering teens all over the place. But that doesn't meant that Freddy-Krueger-the-dude is literally real. He is never going to creep into your dreams at night and murder you. He has the power to frighten, there are isolated forces in the world that resemble him, but he is ultimately a manufactured menace.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
92 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If I Admit That ‘Hating Men’ Is a Thing, Will You Stop Turning It Into a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? [View all]
ismnotwasm
Mar 2013
OP
Vinny has been blocked. It is disruptive to say feminists, in a safe haven group,
boston bean
Mar 2013
#5
that would be the ideal ... yes, that all are treated equally as humans
Tuesday Afternoon
Mar 2013
#10
yes. the class warfare even if there was a classless society gender issues could still exist.
Tuesday Afternoon
Mar 2013
#13
yes, I know. but, if we (all of us) treat everyone (all of us) with respect then
Tuesday Afternoon
Mar 2013
#41
What power does your examples hold over you? Do you make less on the dollar?
boston bean
Mar 2013
#15
It's not a matter of "not-persecuted"--it's a matter of persecution by those not-persecuted...
Moonwalk
Mar 2013
#35
Did you really just say that feminism (in general) is not about social justice?
nomorenomore08
Mar 2013
#51
so, your suggestion is it not be a womans movement but a class movement. yes. this has been
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#58
you then believe that the Civil Rights movement were not in fact about Social Justice?
LanternWaste
Apr 2013
#69
I've noticed that many idiots purposefully confuse the words "bashing" with
LanternWaste
Apr 2013
#73
this is such a very good post. i could feel the anger and was right there wiht you
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#40
it's not as if we haven't seen it patiently explained a dozen times lately....
bettyellen
Apr 2013
#76
That suggestion, that we should 'sell' feminism to men in a way that feeds their fucking egos,
redqueen
Apr 2013
#82
not your mama. i say repeatedly and having my share of being a mama, know when someone is demanding
seabeyond
Apr 2013
#83
Perhaps a bullet point list like that could be pinned to the top of this group. nt
redqueen
Mar 2013
#47
That's a great list of ideas and ideals. Lays out just about everything perfectly.
nomorenomore08
Mar 2013
#53
have you read cnn and all the other comments section talking about american women, buy foreign,
seabeyond
Apr 2013
#75
i am particular on using either misogyny or sexism. and try to keep it honest. my point
seabeyond
Apr 2013
#90
Feminists are not misandrists, but misandrists can mis-identify, mistakenly or otherwise, as feminis
patrice
Apr 2013
#77
I'm for whatever works to be as honestly INCLUSIVE of women as possible. It might also help if
patrice
Apr 2013
#86
ya. the problem. speak up and watch the shit fly, lol. i wanted to say, i do not know i have hated
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#60
I posted a thread in gd a few weeks back voicing my thoughts on the guys here that act that way.
Arcanetrance
Mar 2013
#61
lol lol. when i saw your name, i could nto remember the specific but i remembered
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#62
yes. i remember. you and other men spoke up. and still, the guys and their supporters continued a
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#64
my bad. me too. and it took me years to see thru the haze of continually being told by liberal men
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#66
There are women who don't care for men as a group, just as there are African-Americans who
geek tragedy
Apr 2013
#78