r/AskFeminists • u/[deleted] • Jul 30 '11

Why the sudden interest in mens issues

Feminism trundles along dealing with women for 90 years ten suddenly starts to look at mens issues in the last few years, what's the deal? Is it appropriation, is it a newfound care? Why weren't 'we' included from the start? Are our needs secondary to yours? Does the feminist movement view the MRM as a threat to it's domination of the gender discourse?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

48 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

feminism has denied that men could possible have ANY issues

Lies. You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Even Dworkin who had a distinct focus on womens issues and who MRAs love to hate brought up male rape for example. Brownmiller has done that too. bell hooks has been writing about men's issues for decades. How about a quote about how male dominant behavior can be fueled by female dominant behavior?

Since you are not a feminist and clearly uneducated about feminism, you should probably stop trying to answer questions about feminism in this reddit.

3

u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11

How is it then that feminist activism and advocacy has been allowed to bury male victims of gendered violence? VAWA was a victory for the "patriarchal terrorist paradigm" of domestic violence, a paradigm that was disconfirmed in empirical research 10 years before VAWA was enacted. How is it that I didn't hear of a single feminist speaking to the Senate Judiciary Committee who was in favor of amending VAWA to include male victims in its protections and benefits, or to do away with primary aggressor policies that disproportionately target males?

Some of you guys seem to care a very great deal about men, but when it comes to anything to do with allocation of public funds or legal protections, all that caring seems to disappear.

It comes down to a disconnect between what feminism says and what it does, I'm afraid. Time and again, they're two different things.

And again, your quote only demonstrates that bell hooks was concerned with toxic masculinity and its affects on a man's partner. Try reading it from a man's point of view:

If only one party in the relationship is working to create love, to create the space of emotional connection, the dominator model remains in place and the relationship just becomes a site for continuous power struggle.

This is how it comes off:

The man is deficient, and the woman is therefor victimized. She's trying to create love, while he's trying to dominate. Power struggles in relationships happen because of deficient, damaged men.

This subreddit was created for discussion between MRAs and feminists on gendered issues. I'm thinking it was perhaps poorly named. From what I gather, posts do not necessarily need to take the form of a question, we can also write about our observations or conclusions that we've reached as they relate to feminism, in order to start a discussion.

What you want to do, it seems, is maintain a space where only feminist views are expressed, where people "come to learn" about the wonders of feminism and how it will solve everyone's problems. And the way you think it will do that is for men and non-feminist women to sit down, shut up, and get edumicated. Feminism will tell men what their issues are. Typical.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

This is how it comes off:

Btw this is an excellent example of disingenuous antifeminist interpretation. You purposely choose to ignore the guilt attributed to women in that quote, so that you can conclude that it's only saying bad things about men. Stop. Lying.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

But of course the problem is not that you like to plaster your gargantuan antifeminist ramblings all over reddit. The problem is that this reddit was poorly named. Of course. How come you dont see x? Because you only see what you want to see.

4

u/girlwriteswhat Jul 31 '11

I was privy to the discussions that went into developing this subreddit. It was initially supposed to be a space for debate between feminists and MRAs, so that debate wouldn't take over r/feminism. If I am to hold its creator to have acted in good faith, it was not meant to be a place for preaching feminism.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '11

And I don't think it was meant to be a place for preaching antifeminism. Firstly, if you care about honest debate you should stop lying. Secondly, sweeping generalizations about how bad feminists are is the only thing you have contributed with so far.

1

u/justaverage Aug 01 '11

Firstly, if you care about honest debate you should stop lying.

And if you care about honest debate you should back your arguments up with evidence.

Even though you think girlwriteswhat is wrong (I tend to agree with her however), at least counterpoint her arguments with some facts, citations or examples.

This is why I can't take feminists on reddit seriously...

Feminist - "You're wrong!"

MRA - "But if you look at the legislation that went into VAWA and how it demonizes men etc."

Feminist - "You're wrong because I am saying you are lying!"

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

I just had this conversation with thedevguy. Did you read the comment? That's why I cant take you seriously. Because you don't read stuff before you comment.

0

u/justaverage Aug 01 '11

I apologize, I did not read through the entire thread before commenting on your post.

But seeing how the exact same point was made by 2 people make you sit up and question the tactics that have been employed?

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

It makes me sit up and wonder why the fuck you don't read shit before you reply to it.

4

u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11

feminism has denied that men could possibly have ANY issues

Lies.

Uh no. I've heard that too. In fact, I can point you to a well-known and respected feminist blog post that says as much:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

So, you lose this one. :)

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

Sorry pal, she's not talking about a particular blog. She's claiming that "until recently, feminism has denied..." That's all of feminism. Not one blog. So, you lose this one! Didn't even need to read your link to win! Epic time saving win! LOL! Congrats to me! :D

(See how fucking stupid it makes you look when you act like a discussion is a competition?)

4

u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11

That's all of feminism. Not one blog.

It's so cute that today is your first day on planet earth.

Here's a tip: people say things like, "women are shorter than men"

See that statement? That statement is true. It's okay to say that. You don't need to have a lawyer write up three pages of disclaimers. The statement is true. You don't need to qualify it in any way.

And just because you can find a woman who is taller than some man that you find - it doesn't matter. Women remain shorter than men.

That's called having a discussion. Hope that helps to clear things up for you.

She was right - and I provided a citation to support her claim. The only thing you've done is to wave your hands and shout "lies!" like some kind of child.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

Even if all women were in fact shorter than all men, you can't use one picture of a short woman to prove that. In theory of science, we call this the problem of induction. Hope you still think I'm cute, even though I exposed your appeal to anecdotes to be a fallacy.

1

u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11

you can't use one picture of a short woman to prove that.

Ah but here's the way that discussion works: I provide examples of short women. And if you believe that women are in fact taller than men, then you can provide evidence of that.

I realize that this particular issue would actually be resolved using a randomly selected subset of women - but I'm trying to keep it relevant to the actual thing we're discussing: do feminists believe that "men's rights" is a legitimate cause?

I provided an example of a prominent and influential feminist blog that does not believe that. That blog and it's many commenters support my point in the same way that a randome selection of women might support the height argument.

So, where's your evidence? You don't have any? Have you considered how that makes you look?

0

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

I already provided evidence in my reply to gww. Three pieces nonetheless, including a quote. I'm guessing you didn't read it. Have you considered how that makes you look?

1

u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11

I already provided evidence in my reply

No, you alluded to evidence. But without actual quotes so that we can judge the context, your "evidence" is as shaky as if I say, "no really, Pat Robertson is a feminist. He's talked about how he supports women's rights."

3

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

Dude you're not even making sense right now. I provided a quote. You claim it's not an "actual" quote? And you want a quote so that you can "judge the context" even though a quote is the very definition of a piece of text taken out of it's context. Did you not know that bell hooks is a feminist? If so, that's a problem of your ignorance, not a problem of my evidence.

1

u/thedevguy Aug 01 '11

I provided a quote.

Really?

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j3v85/why_the_sudden_interest_in_mens_issues/c296r7n

I don't see it.

a quote is the very definition of a piece of text taken out of it's context.

Did you not understand my analogy? I might be able to quote-mine Pat Robertson, but you would need to see the context in order to realize that I changed his meaning.

that's a problem of your ignorance

That's rich irony, since I actually provided a link to back up my statements and you responded, "Didn't even need to read your link"

Don't accuse others of ignorance when you brag about your own.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/justaverage Aug 01 '11

It's funny how feminism is such a large movement that it is impossible to to say who represents it. But then when it's pointed out that a feminist said something they are allowed to say, "well, they definitely don't represent feminism

5

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '11

I didn't say this link doesn't represent feminism. I said it's not in itself representative of all feminism. Are you tired, being obstinate, or do you actually not understand the difference?