Ok. Well, first, it seems like this guy has already accepted stock feminist dogma and has tailored all of his arguments to come to conclusions he long ago made, making broad dismissals without giving credence to other viewpoints.
I think it's particularly sad when a man falls for this type of thinking. Feminism is concerned about women, not men. It is bent around the notion that women are inherently less endowed with personal rights than men, and seems to be staying there. If, by the standards of gender equality, we must replace "he" with "he or she" (a sentiment I agree with), then why must we not at the same time replace "feminism" with "humanism".
Feminism (as a body of thought) doesn't address gross disparities gender politics that have existed since its foundation. There are literal Jim Crow laws affecting men. A single man can't enter a Chuck E. Cheese anymore, according to company policy. 70% of successful suicides are male. Less money is raised for Prostate Cancer than Breast Cancer and more men die. We have shorter life expectancy due to inadequate medical care. We can get drafted. We have less chance of getting the kids in divorce settlements. We pay more, straight out, for car insurance. Aside from occasional single (and appreciated) voices from the feminist community, there has been nothing to address these truths.
When the feminist community starts acting like it truly wants equality, namely by giving the concerns of men and children the same level of consideration that women have historically gotten, I might consider all points as having a chance for validity. But the name, Feminism, is truly indicative of the mindset we're working with. If a movement calls for men and woman to give up their preconcieved notions about gender and have a dialogue, it needs to put the terms on neutral ground. Feminism, by name and by dogma, is not neutral. And you cannot expect dialogue or participation from men if you continue to ignore them.
I don't want to come off as uncaring. I believe in the same goals as most moderate feminists. I just think that the movement and is still coming off of an era of groundbreaking advances in the aims of women's equality, and to change the name would be to deny the progress they made. I understand. But the end result is that radical feminists of a pro-woman bent are going to find a far more comfortable existence in the community than someone of similar radical proclivity sporting a pro-man bent. This speaks of a broad bias, however correct or incorrect it may be- and bias has no place in a school of thought that claims to be seeking equality.
Honestly, I would be more happy with a feminism that stuck to the goals of promoting the rights and identity of women. Without attempting to take on the mantle of gender neutrality, feminism can maintain its identity and help a lot of women find a community and promote their views. It's notsomuch that men do not want to consider or espouse feminist viewpoints, it's just that as of today, the prevailing feminist zeitgeist has little to do with them. The hostility with which the author of the piece attacked viewpoints other than his own is, I think, testament to the kind of reception the uninitiated but interested male recieves. The author went as far as to say that men who accepted traditional gender values were "stupid". That's hardly inviting. But it's sortof typical, especially among the ranks of the newly-intiated, and particularly among feminist men.
Wow. Well, it's been a while since I got to rail like that. I promise I'm not a jerk.
The lively discussion has seemed to die down. I mostly agree with most of what Billy said and would comment myself but I could not eclipse his way of saying it so I'll just say I agree with him. Of course, I'm a male and, therefore, am now considered a jerk along with Billy, if such was already thought.
I still liked the article and felt it was well written. But, the points I did not agree with so much. But, I'm not as strong felt on my opinions on the subject, as say Billy is, so again, thsi is the best you'll get from me.
Owlmoose, I'd still like to read your reasons for disagreement.
I think it's particularly sad when a man falls for this type of thinking. Feminism is concerned about women, not men. It is bent around the notion that women are inherently less endowed with personal rights than men, and seems to be staying there. If, by the standards of gender equality, we must replace "he" with "he or she" (a sentiment I agree with), then why must we not at the same time replace "feminism" with "humanism".
Feminism (as a body of thought) doesn't address gross disparities gender politics that have existed since its foundation. There are literal Jim Crow laws affecting men. A single man can't enter a Chuck E. Cheese anymore, according to company policy. 70% of successful suicides are male. Less money is raised for Prostate Cancer than Breast Cancer and more men die. We have shorter life expectancy due to inadequate medical care. We can get drafted. We have less chance of getting the kids in divorce settlements. We pay more, straight out, for car insurance. Aside from occasional single (and appreciated) voices from the feminist community, there has been nothing to address these truths.
When the feminist community starts acting like it truly wants equality, namely by giving the concerns of men and children the same level of consideration that women have historically gotten, I might consider all points as having a chance for validity. But the name, Feminism, is truly indicative of the mindset we're working with. If a movement calls for men and woman to give up their preconcieved notions about gender and have a dialogue, it needs to put the terms on neutral ground. Feminism, by name and by dogma, is not neutral. And you cannot expect dialogue or participation from men if you continue to ignore them.
I don't want to come off as uncaring. I believe in the same goals as most moderate feminists. I just think that the movement and is still coming off of an era of groundbreaking advances in the aims of women's equality, and to change the name would be to deny the progress they made. I understand. But the end result is that radical feminists of a pro-woman bent are going to find a far more comfortable existence in the community than someone of similar radical proclivity sporting a pro-man bent. This speaks of a broad bias, however correct or incorrect it may be- and bias has no place in a school of thought that claims to be seeking equality.
Honestly, I would be more happy with a feminism that stuck to the goals of promoting the rights and identity of women. Without attempting to take on the mantle of gender neutrality, feminism can maintain its identity and help a lot of women find a community and promote their views. It's notsomuch that men do not want to consider or espouse feminist viewpoints, it's just that as of today, the prevailing feminist zeitgeist has little to do with them. The hostility with which the author of the piece attacked viewpoints other than his own is, I think, testament to the kind of reception the uninitiated but interested male recieves. The author went as far as to say that men who accepted traditional gender values were "stupid". That's hardly inviting. But it's sortof typical, especially among the ranks of the newly-intiated, and particularly among feminist men.
Wow. Well, it's been a while since I got to rail like that. I promise I'm not a jerk.
Reply
I'm at work right now, but when I get home I promise to read your post at length and post a reply.
Thanks Billy!
Reply
I still liked the article and felt it was well written. But, the points I did not agree with so much. But, I'm not as strong felt on my opinions on the subject, as say Billy is, so again, thsi is the best you'll get from me.
Owlmoose, I'd still like to read your reasons for disagreement.
Reply
Leave a comment