Should men describe themselves as feminists, if they are supportive of feminism?

[Johnny Vodka]

Just because she's been in an abusive relationship it doesn't mean she instinctively understands the subject of rape more or has more insight

And so what if she indulges in the escapism of celebrity culture sometimes? if I had been in an abusive relationship is might do the same thing.

Look at how judgemental and horrible some of your post was. Have a bit of compassion.

You offered your opinion and did imply she's a twat, so not sure why you're asking me to have compassion. I, actually interacting the person, think something different. For the record, I like her... we all have our foibles. But she is totally obsessed with celebs, glamour, etc, in the same way (trying not to cling to gender sterotyping) some lads might be obsessed with video games or whatever to the detriment of their understanding of the world (i.e. they shut out news, documentaries, books, etc). People not engaging with issues because they never escape the tat we're bombarded with is an issue in itself.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

ffs read my posts. 'I've engaged in romance in the past'.

She should not trivialise rape in this way. And she's being incredibly insulting to many women in that article. They are somehow brainwashed if they want a bit of romance.

There are ways to critique romance and power structures, but that isn't it.

ffs because there's a critique of "romance" in patriarchal systems as being basically rapey, you're taking it personally because you've been "romantic" (by your definition—I'm not implying you are rapey) in the past? A shared adjective? er, okay

 

[frogwoman]

There is always going to be mentally twisted people with mentally twisted ideas that belong to any given group.
You don't have to relate to or understand or associate with them.

In my head (at least) they have nothing to do with the bigger picture and probably best scoffed at that trying to understand.

Sorry if I have missunderstood what you meant though

I agree. I don't think that this witchwind woman is in any way unwell though. Her arguments are logical, in depth, and thought-out, they are also completely abhorrent. Check her other posts, this is someone who has thought very deeply about her ideas. I think her arguments are abhorrent and like it or not she is not the only one who holds them. And i think we need to see that there could be the roots of such ideas within other parts of feminism even the stuff we agree with rather than calling her mentally twisted because her ideas are disgusting, we need to look at where such thought comes from because its not always down to an individual and their circumstances.

 

[8ball]

ffs read my posts. 'I've engaged in romance in the past'.

She should not trivialise rape in this way. And she's being incredibly insulting to many women in that article. They are somehow brainwashed if they want a bit of romance.

There are ways to critique romance and power structures, but that isn't it.

I really hate intersectionalist wank posturing, so I'm trying to stay away from the stock cliches that make me cringe, but basically when reading this kind of stuff I try to avoid focusing on the fact that I could consider something hurtful to my feelings until I've had a little time to digest things.

I still don't often agree with everything in a provocative bit of writing but it's easier to find the bits I feel are worth taking away that way.

 

[kittyP]

I agree. I don't think that this witchwind woman is in any way unwell though. Her arguments are logical, in depth, and thought-out, they are also completely abhorrent. Check her other posts, this is someone who has thought very deeply about her ideas. I think her arguments are abhorrent and like it or not she is not the only one who holds them. And i think we need to see that there could be the roots of such ideas within other parts of feminism even the stuff we agree with rather than calling her mentally twisted because her ideas are disgusting, we need to look at where such thought comes from because its not always down to an individual and their circumstances.

Fair enough,

I just meant that you don't need to get caught up with this stuff if you don't want to. x

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I really hate intersectionalist wank posturing, so I'm trying to stay away from the stock cliches that make me cringe, but basically when reading this kind of stuff I try to avoid focusing on the fact that I could consider something hurtful to my feelings until I've had a little time to digest things.

I still don't often agree with everything in a provocative bit of writing but it's easier to find the bits I feel are worth taking away that way.

Fair enough. My main point would be that she is hopelessly reductionist. Human relations and human sexuality and the way it expresses itself are a whole order of magnitude more complex and contradictory than that. For me she's not just wrong, she's offensively wrong. It's wrongheaded because she starts from the wrong place. She leaves out one very important point: women want sex too.

 

[8ball]

Fair enough. My main point would be that she is hopelessly reductionist. Human relations and human sexuality and the way it expresses itself are a whole order of magnitude more complex and contradictory than that. For me she's not just wrong, she's offensively wrong. It's wrongheaded because she starts from the wrong place. She leaves out one very important point: women want sex too.

I'm not sure which bit you are considering the point she is starting from, but tbh I'm quite tired and due to that as well as mild drunkenness aren't likely to deliver a cogent overall analysis of the piece at this juncture.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Fair enough. My main point would be that she is hopelessly reductionist.

But you've said nothing which backs this up.

 

[Diamond]

A few thoughts because this is a current and troubling area:

The underlying issue is based on divisive identity politics, which is sort of what you are trying to work against in the first instance.

But moreover, there is a sense of falseness by claiming that one is a "feminist" when one has not experienced any of the situations one is decrying whatsoever. It seems a bit hollow to say the least.

Finally, I think the end-game is rising above the term of "feminism" or "chauvinism". They should both be disposed of as soon as possible.

 

[frogwoman]

I really hate intersectionalist wank posturing, so I'm trying to stay away from the stock cliches that make me cringe, but basically when reading this kind of stuff I try to avoid focusing on the fact that I could consider something hurtful to my feelings until I've had a little time to digest things.

I still don't often agree with everything in a provocative bit of writing but it's easier to find the bits I feel are worth taking away that way.

Yep.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fair enough. My main point would be that she is hopelessly reductionist. Human relations and human sexuality and the way it expresses itself are a whole order of magnitude more complex and contradictory than that. For me she's not just wrong, she's offensively wrong. It's wrongheaded because she starts from the wrong place. She leaves out one very important point: women want sex too.

Part of Dworkin's thesis (paraphrased) is that under patriarchy women are socialised to want sex, and to prefer it in particular formats (LTRs/marriage). That's not a denial that "women want sex too", it's an acknowledgement that socialisation under patriarchy influences what choices you have, and how you make them.

 

[Diamond]

Part of Dworkin's thesis (paraphrased) is that under patriarchy women are socialised to want sex, and to prefer it in particular formats (LTRs/marriage). That's not a denial that "women want sex too", it's an acknowledgement that socialisation under patriarchy influences what choices you have, and how you make them.

Not read any Dworkin at all but does she have anything to say about socialisation under patriarchy with regard to men?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not read any Dworkin at all but does she have anything to say about socialisation under patriarchy with regard to men?

She acknowledges that men too are socialised to certain roles.
Her earlier written output isn't massive, and is worth reading, if only to get a handle on what she actually says (as opposed to what people represent her as having said).

 

[Idris2002]

On this topic, the stuff in the link below is worth reading, on the rise and fall of certain unfortunate tropes in romance fiction:

http://pictorial.jezebel.com/how-ha...st-famous-name-in-romance-1692048963/+jparham

 

[William of Walworth]

Have only had time to read first and last pages right now, so profuse apologies if this has been posted already.

But I thought Owen Jones's recent Guardian column on this very subject (men/feminism) was pretty good.

 

[equationgirl]

You offered your opinion and did imply she's a twat, so not sure why you're asking me to have compassion. I, actually interacting the person, think something different. For the record, I like her... we all have our foibles. But she is totally obsessed with celebs, glamour, etc, in the same way (trying not to cling to gender sterotyping) some lads might be obsessed with video games or whatever to the detriment of their understanding of the world (i.e. they shut out news, documentaries, books, etc). People not engaging with issues because they never escape the tat we're bombarded with is an issue in itself.

And did you bother reading the other post I made about why she might be behaving that way?

I asked you to have some compassion rather than be judgemental of her given that her abusive relationship in her past. As for not engaging with issues, one strategy recommended to those suffering from stress and/or depression is to avoid the news, and newspapers, and online publications etc for a while. Not everyone will be suffering from those admittedly but I don't think it's as simple as 'people aren't engaging'.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

And did you bother reading the other post I made about why she might be behaving that way?

I asked you to have some compassion rather than be judgemental of her given that her abusive relationship in her past. As for not engaging with issues, one strategy recommended to those suffering from stress and/or depression is to avoid the news, and newspapers, and online publications etc for a while. Not everyone will be suffering from those admittedly but I don't think it's as simple as 'people aren't engaging'.

As to your first point, yes, I did, and I don't agree with either your first judgement or then your more 'compassionate' version, actually knowing the person. She doesn't strike me as the sort of person who has ever taken an interest in current affairs, and, actually, her life seems to be going okay now (prob better than mine tbh).

I'm not judgemental. We work in an office of ~7 people. She'll laugh at the big lad who picks his nose and eats it. Other folk laugh at some of her dippiness. Fuck knows what they say about me when I leave the room.. Better that people can maintain a sense of humour rather than take offence at everything.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Better that people can maintain a sense of humour rather than take offence at everything.

idk, that phrase seems suspicious tacked onto the end like that.

Sounds awfully like the argument made my those types who think their desire to treat people like shit (and/or be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc....) trumps other people's desire to not be treated like shit, even when (as it invariably does when these arguments are employed) that being treated like shit has wider and farther reaching ramifications within society.

How about: Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding, and recognise that not everyone will have the same reactions, nor for the reasons we might attribute them to. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding, and recognise that some people might laugh at something and others might be offended at the same thing, because they have different life experiences, different personalities, different hang ups. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding and recognise that just because they might think the best way to approach something is to not take it too seriously doesn't mean that's the right way for everyone, nor is it even possible for everyone. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding and recognise that it takes very little to not be a dick and try to accommodate other people's feelings when it seems they might be hurt - even if we don't understand why they are hurt - than steadfastly insist that they're doing it wrong or would be better doing it a different way.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

idk, that phrase seems suspicious tacked onto the end like that.

SNIP

And that sounds like a hell of a lot to think about before being allowed to have a laugh. In the stark light of day, my life isn't exactly great - and one of my coping mechanisms is to find humour in myself, others and the general absurdities of life. When I can latch on to that, it's a good day. I don't think my sense of humour is cruel and I think I manage to judge my jokes correctly for my 'audience'; most people irl seem to find me funny anyway.

Anyway, this is all veering off topic. I was UTI when I wrote that post last night and I probably am still a bit this morning.

 

[Citizen66]

I'm supportive of gender equality as part of the wider struggles for a classless society/world. I don't agree with all feminist arguments/positions - something that feminists probably feel too. I sort of lump it in with identity politics, so on that basis I Don't consider myself one. In an ideal world it wouldn't be needed as anarchism/communism should be making identitcal arguments. Unfortunately anarchism/communism (UK context) resides in a capitalist/patriarchal framework and some of the attitudes persist, even subconsciously, within radical groups - which still appear to be white male dominated for the most part - hence feminism needs to exist as a counterbalance as much as anything else.

 

[8ball]

... I was UTI when I wrote that post last night and I probably am still a bit this morning.

Best get yourself to the walk-in centre for some antibiotics.

 

[ViolentPanda]

As to your first point, yes, I did, and I don't agree with either your first judgement or then your more 'compassionate' version, actually knowing the person. She doesn't strike me as the sort of person who has ever taken an interest in current affairs, and, actually, her life seems to be going okay now (prob better than mine tbh).

I'm not judgemental. We work in an office of ~7 people. She'll laugh at the big lad who picks his nose and eats it. Other folk laugh at some of her dippiness. Fuck knows what they say about me when I leave the room.. Better that people can maintain a sense of humour rather than take offence at everything.

As a former union rep for 3 different unions at different times, in my experience one of the most prevalent excuses for mistreatment of staff was (probably still is) "it's just banter. It's not my fault if they can't take a joke. They should get a sense of humour!".
If you've started thinking along those lines, you're already on a slippery slope toward being a bully, IMO.

 

[ViolentPanda]

idk, that phrase seems suspicious tacked onto the end like that.

Sounds awfully like the argument made my those types who think their desire to treat people like shit (and/or be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc....) trumps other people's desire to not be treated like shit, even when (as it invariably does when these arguments are employed) that being treated like shit has wider and farther reaching ramifications within society.

How about: Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding, and recognise that not everyone will have the same reactions, nor for the reasons we might attribute them to. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding, and recognise that some people might laugh at something and others might be offended at the same thing, because they have different life experiences, different personalities, different hang ups. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding and recognise that just because they might think the best way to approach something is to not take it too seriously doesn't mean that's the right way for everyone, nor is it even possible for everyone. Better people develop their sense of empathy and understanding and recognise that it takes very little to not be a dick and try to accommodate other people's feelings when it seems they might be hurt - even if we don't understand why they are hurt - than steadfastly insist that they're doing it wrong or would be better doing it a different way.

Amen, t'other VP!

 

[ViolentPanda]

And that sounds like a hell of a lot to think about before being allowed to have a laugh.

So having a normal degree of consideration for the feelings of others "sounds like a hell of a lot to think about", does it?

 

[Johnny Vodka]

So having a normal degree of consideration for the feelings of others "sounds like a hell of a lot to think about", does it?

I do have consideration for other's feelings and have never been in any sort of trouble at work. I think my humour is well-judged, but I would say that. The other VPs post sounds a bit like 'anyone could be offended by anything, so let's best not make any jokes', where as those bits in the day where the office atmosphere is lightened by a bit of laughter is what makes the working day bearable.

 

[equationgirl]

I do have consideration for other's feelings and have never been in any sort of trouble at work. I think my humour is well-judged, but I would say that. The other VPs post sounds a bit like 'anyone could be offended by anything, so let's best not make any jokes', where as those bits in the day where the office atmosphere is lightened by a bit of laughter is what makes the working day bearable.

No it doesn't. I had the misfortune to hear two of my colleagues saying something that could be construed as racist, and the two main excuses given by both of them were 'it was just banter' and 'x has a good sense of humour'.

It's not how something is intended it's how something is received. It's not hard to be funny without causing offence. Yes it requires a little though before speaking but is it really so difficult not to be a dick in everyday life?

 

[Puddy_Tat]

those bits in the day where the office atmosphere is lightened by a bit of laughter is what makes the working day bearable.

some people are capable of humour that doesn't involve any combination of racism / sexism / homophobia / prejudice against disabled people...

 

[Johnny Vodka]

No it doesn't.

As I've said, I've never been in trouble at work and seem to get on with the people in my office, to the extent that my colleagues will often confide in me. One of them asked me the other day if they get griped about by the rest behind their back (they're a lot harsher on each other than I am). Certainly no suggestion that I'm a dick in everyday life.

 

[equationgirl]

As I've said, I've never been in trouble at work and seem to get on with the people in my office, to the extent that my colleagues will often confide in me. One of them asked me the other day if they get griped about by the rest behind their back (they're a lot harsher on each other than I am). Certainly no suggestion that I'm a dick in everyday life.

So why are you such a dick on here sometimes, especially on issues around feminism?

And by the way, you don't have to have had a ddisciplinary issues at work to make offensive comments. Do you really think every uttered comment that crosses a line gets referred to HR?

 

[equationgirl]

You always trot out 'my colleagues often confide in me' on these threads.

Why is that?