For about a year or so the backlash against the men’s movement has taken the form of questioning the need for a men’s movement by insisting that feminism already does everything the men’s movement says it wants. We see crap like this: Amanda Marcotte’s insultingly witless attempt, Lindy West’s pathetically witless attempt – pathetic because I really think the poor dear imagines she is talking to men in this article, instead of the circlelick of her own echo chamber… And that’s about as good as it gets when it comes to feminism being the cure for men’s ills.
I might mention The Good Man Project in this connection, but that would be overkill.
Tamen gives us one list below in response to a comment from Jupp:
A while back CommenterJupp made the following observation:
About feminists who advocate for chivalry –
The problem might be that gender roles are learned and impregnated at a very early age, while world views like feminism are usually encountered significantly later (like college). So before a woman studies feminism, she was daddies little girl, she was being expected to act like a lady and to be treated like one, she has learned the power of a girls tears. To change her understanding of gender roles she would have to reprogram herself, but this is no easy task, especially as we all tend not to see our flaws as flaws.
Then Commenter Jupp quoted me:
“Jupp, that comment sums up a feminist’s journey from privileged woman to actual principled feminist.”
and asked: “But why should they make this journey? This particular kind of chivalry constitutes a privilege for women and why should a person want to lose a privilege they have? ”
As we have seen earlier, this female privilege Jupp is referring to is largely white female privilege because unless you are white, you don’t count as fully female as far as having all the various privileges that accrue to that estate.
Tamen responds and expands:
Tamen on 2013-01-02 at 4:49 pm said:
When one disables the unidirectionalism inherent in many feminist definitions (privilege, rape culture, patriarchy/kirarchy and so on) then feminism itself does not really come off too well when it’s own theory is applied to it. Jupp’s comment about feminist’s reluctance to give up privilege is one example, Feminists track record on male victims of rape and on female perpetrators contributes to rape culture to the extent that a feminist who in an article about rape culture wrote that “only men can stop rape”. Minimizing victims of rape is rape culture according to feminists, but apparently not when the victims minimized are male and the perpetrator female. Not believing a rape victim is rape culture with the exception being if the victim is male. The exception is perfectly exemplified by Marcotte who thinks it is much more likely that a male victim faked it and is abusing the partner by being upset about sex without his consent.
And then Marcotte have the audacity to say that what men needs to address and solve their issues is feminism.
Man: There is this problem that men’s consent is implied and not really respected by women. Who can address it?
Jill: Feminism can. Men of course can say no, but if you say no to certain sex acts then I will vilify you and call you a misogynist.
Feminist X: Oh, and this is so not like calling a woman who won’t perform a blowjob/facial for a misandrist because of power differential.
Man: I see.
Man: A woman had sex with her sleeping partner because she thought the movement he made in his sleep was an invitation to sex. The man feel violated and weird and won’t touch her and now the woman feel bad and is at loss as to what to do.
Amanda: Feminism can. The man weren’t abused, he should stop being butthurt and don’t make the woman who he claim didn’t get his consent feel bad, that’s abusive.
Feminist A: The man is an idiot for making her feel bad, if he really felt violated he should dump her.
Feminist B: The sleeping man gave a signal that she understood to be consent and hence she isn’t a rapist for fucking him while he was asleep.
Feminist B elsewhere on the net: There is no way there could be any mixed signals leading to a man thinking that it’s ok to penetrate a sleeping woman.
Man: I see.
Man: I was raped by a woman. Who can address this?
Soraya Chemaly: Feminism can. Although individual stories without context about male victims of female perpetrators eliminated the qualitative difference between male-on-female rape and female-on-male rape. Raising the specter of women raping boys implies a false equivalence. Only men can stop rape. I am so not saying that boys’ and men’s experiences of assault and rape are in any way less relevant or horrific. It’s just that what I say means that female rapist of men don’t exist (are specters), but if they actually do the female rapists is not in any way responsible for what she does as only a man could’ve prevented her from raping. The rape experiences of boys and men are not specifically denied, ignored and hidden by feminism despite me writing as a feminist doing exactly that. This all makes sense to me.
Man: I see.
Man: Even though I clearly said intercourse is off the table my partner took my penis and put it in her vagina without my consent. Who can address that?
Schwyzer: Feminism can, although I wouldn’t call that rape. Because.
Man: I see.
Man: A woman (nanny) in her thirties have sexual relations with her employers 11 year old son. Who can address that?
Schwyzer: Feminism can. As the son of the employer he was privileged and hence he was a predator. The woman was disprivileged and although she shouldn’t have had sexual relations with the boy he was at least as culpable as her.
Man: Oh, what about the 11 year old girl who initiated sexual relations with her parents employee (piano teacher)? Who can address that?
Schwyzer: Feminism can. The onus is solely on adult men to set and maintain good boundaries.
Man: I see.
Man: I was raped and it took me a while to realize what happened to me and recognize it for what it was. Who can address that?
McEwan: Feminism can. You didn’t recognize that as rape because you thought “Eeeew, that would make me a woman” whenever you started to consider that you in fact had been raped. Get rid of the femmephobia and all will become clear.
Man: I see.
Feminist A: I am for enthusiastic consent. If you don’t get enthusiastic consent you are a rapist. I’ll even write in an “Yes means Yes” anthology about enthusiastic consent.
Man: A woman didn’t take no for a no and nagged her partner into sex. The man felt violated. Who can address that?
Feminist B: Feminism can. Although I probably would call it rape if a man had nagged a woman into sex I won’t call this rape.
Feminist C: Wait, that isn’t rape as that would make me a rapist (and my partner as well).
Feminist A (later): In principle I am for enthusiastic consent, but…
Man: I see.
Man: NISVS 2010 Report showed that in 2010 both 1.1% of women and 1.1% of men reported having unconsensual sex (aka rape even though CDC decides to label it “being made to penetrate” for men). 79.2% of the men who were “made to penetrate someone else” sometimes in their lifetime reported a single female perpetrator. Who can address this?
Feminist blogosphere (the adherents to tl;dr): Feminism can. What are you talking about? 1 in 5 women have been raped while 1 in 72 men have been raped.
Feminist blogosphere (those who read beyond the summary): Feminism can. What are you talking about? 1 in 5 women have been raped while 1 in 20 men have been raped.
Man: But what about the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers?Feminist blogosphere:
………………………………………..-=Ø…………………………….
(crappy drawing of a tumbleweed blowing silently across the plain)Man: I see.
For all the talk about how feminism is the solutions to men’s issues (the ones feminists are willing to acknowledge at least) I note that it seems like male victims of rape and sexual violence (in particular those with female perpetrators) are more likely to “come out” in MRA and other non-feminist areas than on the feminists blogs I follow.
I know why, but feminists apparently don’t.
I think feminism would be much more successful at achieving what they claim to be by actually applying their own theories to themselves and change the aspects of feminism and feminists that fails rather than the current tactic of vilifying MRAs.
For a very thorough take-down of this “Feminsim is the cure for men’s ills” meme, here is Sir You Are Being Mocked on the subject.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
And you know what’s really funny? Thirty or forty years from now, after all of the vitriole, feminists are going to be saying that the MRM is/was a branch of feminism. They are going to try to take all the credit, and they are going to pretend contemporary feminists are not the MRM’s implacable enemies.
To be fair, he totally admitted that everything he knows about gender and sexuality comes from one Michael Kimmel textbook and some porn.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight
you, and then you win.”
It’s amazing how the feminist reaction to the MRM has followed that Gandhi quote so closely.
I’ve also noticed a desperate attempt in the past year to appropriate men’s issues (previously ignored, mocked and fought against) under feminism. They have become generally fine at stating they support a men’s issue where the resolution would either benefit women as well or at least not adversely affect them. Where they are failing again and again is when the resolution to an equality issue requires removing a female advantage, such as in shared parenting, DV provision and paper abortions.
@logSotot – I feel like I need to learn more history of women’s movements, I get the feeling feminism has glommed onto and reappropriated quite a few different women’s movements in its time.
@OirishM, they have, but even more interestingly, they have come around to blaming men for the things that those earlier women’s movements achieved which are no longer in vogue. A prime example of this is the Tender Years Doctrine. There are the issues surrounding women in the military when earlier feminists ran White Feather Campaigns. And then there are all of the issues of women excluded from the workforce in the 1950’s when 19th century activists gave women unfair advantages in both the home and at work, making wives more inclined to quit their jobs and employers less inclined to hire them. As far as feminists were concerned, prohibition itself was about allowing wives to gain control over men’s income. The basic argument of the WCTU was “men should give us their money or else they’re monstrous wife beaters.” Later, they claimed that marriage was a tool of the Patriarchy. Which really only makes sense if the Patriarchy is a tool of Feminism.
Adiabat,
“I’ve also noticed a desperate attempt in the past year to appropriate men’s issues (previously ignored, mocked and fought against) under feminism.”
And I’ve noticed how traditionalist that is. Women assuming control over personal issues as part of their gender role. These feminist really think this is their purview, ven if i’s other peoples lives. But then that has been their problem in life from the beginning – dictating to other peoplel how to live their lives. You find this in every last one of these middle class social reform movements. It’s a structural feature of that culture.
logSotot,
“They are going to try to take all the credit, and they are going to pretend contemporary feminists are not the MRM’s implacable enemies.”
They can stay implacable enemies as long as they serve the MRM’s purposes. Sun zi has a lot to say about this kind of thing. He calls it the acme of skill, to get your enemieis to help you win.
Credit? If they take credit to destroying their own movement and the traditionalism that undergirds it, all the better. Then they can’t turn around and blame anyone else.
Every time feminists announce that they understand men and men’s issues, it cracks me up. Because they immediately go on to demonstrate that they have NO clue whatsoever, and get angry when anyone points out their errors.
This notion that “feminism is the default framework for all gender discussion” is so blatantly unworkable, and they defend it so fiercely even after its obvious failure, that it reminds of Bush & Co. defending the Iraq war three years in.
That’s funny because this morning over coffee I was just thinking that the Wage Gap is the feminist version of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
“This notion that “feminism is the default framework for all gender discussion” is so blatantly unworkable, and they defend it so fiercely even after its obvious failure, that it reminds of Bush & Co. defending the Iraq war three years in.”
This is a general problem for them, the way they parallel the right wing. Time for a post on it. Guys, you know i always let you do as much of my witing as i cna get you to do, here’s a chance.
These are the parallels I see so far:
1. Threat/vicitm narratives – one of the recurring themes in the religious right is impending doom society in under threat. It may be the Apocalypse, it may be the Communists, it may be the meltdown of tradtional society under the assualts of civic rights, it may be the Patriarchy and the evil MRAs, but it’s essential to their world view.
2. They are true believers – there are structures of dogmas, “axioms”, that are necessary to keep the model together.
3. They are convinced they have the secret insight inot how things really are and how they should be.
4. They have a natrual tendency to split into factions and to hereticate people they disagree with – RINOS, “fun feminists”, “allies” (allowed in on suffernace and on permanent probation.)
More.
Actually the American right these days comes in two flavors of True Believer:
1. The religious right, who are True Believers in “Christianity = good = Republican = war for Jesus;” and
2. The economic right, who are True Believers in “laissez-faire free markets uber alles, war is good for business.”
The feminist creed is “women = feminism = victims = righteous = important,” with the corresponding opposites applied to men.
Resistance to Scientific evidence that contradict their views.
Willingness to use bad science, or to misrepresent science completely to support their views.
A belief that they are “the saved” and everyone else is a sinner/misogynist
That’s all I’ve got for now
Honestly, it won’t be the “Feminists” calling victory. They’re just fucking tools of the ruling class who are playing their part in dividing nations so that the owners of the various actual money-makers can watch us all flop about fighting amongst ourselves.
Who reaps the benefits of a massive cultural “men vs women” conflict? Hint: it is neither men nor women. While they stagnate wages and continue to greedily sweep up anything that can’t be nailed down or owned, we see our own power (for those who aren’t born into millions) dwindle.
Welcome to the reversal of the last two-fucking-hundred years of history in which the oppressed (read: everyone who isn’t born into a life of fucking luxury) seem to be losing ground every day.
So thank you, Feminists, for continually proving that self-interest is the dominant cultural framework. MRAs? You are far from exemplary yourselves, but at least you’re addressing the issues that help everyone and not just a small segment of white, middle-class women.
Crow, a feminists scholar named Nancy Fraser has an interesting papaer detailing how 2WF’s drives for women going out to work dovetailed neatly with the objectives of neoliberalism (80s globalism , Gordon Gecko etc). Unintended consequences indeed.
Adiabat and Copyleft, those are good, espcially the sinner/saved dichotomy. That is what licenses the “false consciousness” business, which in turn licenses this nonsnese of prcliaming people “privielged” despite their own somehow not sacred “lived experiences.
A few more similarities between feminism and right wing politics (some of which others have already said in different ways): they both use moralistic language and shaming tactics; they both think that women need special protections (although this is true of most parties); they’re often both sex-negative, especially for men; they both tend to think men should be stoic and man up.
I’ve not read Nancy Fraser’s essay but there are rumours (maybe more) than the CIA funded Gloria Steinem, as I guess you all know. Perhaps the consequences were thus not entirely unintended?
“Perhaps the consequences were thus not entirely unintended?”
Or inevitable. Look at the class backgrounds and the class scultures of those involved. Their vision of social betterment was individualistic – indeed this is where the Marxists got purged out of feminism, however much they contributed to a lot of its tendencies – and that is the whole 80s ethos after all.
Shaming and moralaistic language – that’s a good parallel too.
Another similartiy is the id-driven incoherence of a lot of their discourse.
Yep. Another similarity: they both tend to fixate on men at the top of society, ignoring the rest.
Btw perhaps I misunderstood your “unintended consequences” line? I’m curious now if you were being sarcastic all along!
And of course, feminists have always been eagerly on the side of right-wing censors and morality police in their hate for pornorgraphy, prostitution, etc. The eagerness to outlaw any form of expression they find offensive has always conflicted with their alleged message of “freedom,” up to today’s protests against vulgar language on Twitter and sexy videos on YouTube.
“Btw perhaps I misunderstood your “unintended consequences” line? I’m curious now if you were being sarcastic all along!”
No, no – I just meanat intent didn’t really come into it. I don’t think they had the foresight to see where their intiatives would lead, but their methods and intellectual tools led them inevitably to that end. In fact it was lack of intentionality and lack of self-awareness that led them intot the opposite of what they at least said they wanted.
Copyleft – how could I have missed that obvous one!
Well, feminists and religious ideologues are cut from the same stone. At one point they literally were one and the same. People were afraid of giving women the vote because they feared the righteous moral crusaders who made up the bulk of the Suffragist movement.
It’s fascinating how feminism was injected with Marxist theories during the 1950’s and how the bulk of the movement ostensibly shifted towards the extreme left while remaining firmly authoritarian. Fascinating how they went through an anarchist phase where they appropriated anti-feminists such as Emma Goldman. Except for anything that infringed on their right-wing fundamentalist morals, such as Goldman’s support for free love and lgbt relationships all the while feminists were sex-negative and anti-gay. It’s also fascinating how far out of it’s way feminists go to accept religious believers into their fold even as they blame all of religion on the Patriarchy.
Perhaps the antipathy of so many feminists to various religions is just plain old sectarianism.
“Who reaps the benefits of a massive cultural “men vs women” conflict? Hint: it is neither men nor women. While they stagnate wages and continue to greedily sweep up anything that can’t be nailed down or owned, we see our own power (for those who aren’t born into millions) dwindle.
So thank you, Feminists, for continually proving that self-interest is the dominant cultural framework. MRAs? You are far from exemplary yourselves, but at least you’re addressing the issues that help everyone and not just a small segment of white, middle-class women.”
Hey, now, hang on just a second.
We had a protest against the 1% a couple years ago, I dunno if you remember it or not. It was called Occupy.
That lasted about two or three months, during which literally no one was running things, no one could agree on what the point of the whole thing was, the messaging was garbled as hell, every lunatic fringe special interest group tried to either co-opt or surf, no one could be bothered to do the hard work of actually going out into communities and talking to people and building the movement. At the end of that two or three months, nationwide coordinated police attacks (almost certainly ordered by the 1%) destroyed and dispersed every remaining major camp, everyone got scared and went home (except for the militant anarchists, who had already left at that point because Occupy had a sick fetish for nonviolence and didn’t understand how it only works as part of a good cop/bad cop setup), and what was left of the “movement” promptly forgot what the fuck it was doing.
Now, if you manage to start a movement against the 1% that doesn’t have its head so far up its ass it can lick its own tongue, I’m there. But I’m not the charismatic would-be political martyr who can start that movement, and it doesn’t sound like you are either.
Welcome, Aguy.
” But I’m not the charismatic would-be political martyr who can start that movement, and it doesn’t sound like you are either.”
And thank God for that! Beware of charismatic leaders, they usually get co-opted and branded as instruments of someone else’s bid for power or funding, or become tyrants themselves, or get so embroiled in struggles with the other charismaticleaders of the movement to the point that everything just degenerates into factionalism and tribalism.
The emphasis on “safe spaces” in feminism degenerated into echo chambers and tribalist navel-gazing of the kind WOCs are crtiticizing once again.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/14/solidarityisforwhitewomen-hashtag-feminism
Occupy was a movement doomed from the outset. Ulike the anti-war protests of the 1960s there was no issue to galvanize them into a cohesive movement. it never was anything more than a chance for a bunch of old hippies to relive their past with a bunch of younger wannabees. One of the reasons the movement failed was its support fro Obama, who was bought and paid for by the 1%. Obama received way more corporate money in ’08 than McCain and the first thing he did was to give it back in the form of bailouts, ramp up the war in Afghanistan, and tailor his health care plan to funnel money up the corporate ladder. Occupy was supporting the very people they were protesting.
During the Middle Ages in Western Europe, Christianity was 100% synonymous with the Catholic Church. Although a variety of doctrinal variations emerged over the centuries, the Catholic Church asserted an absolute monopoly over how Christians established a relationship with God. The Roman Pope even eventually claimed authority over the Orthodox churches of the East. Among the secular population, it was taken for granted that the only way to be a good, pious Christian was to be a good Catholic, and follow unquestioningly the dictates of the clergy. To even hint that a person could be a good Christian without following the Church was at some times a crime punishable by death.
One of the results of this doctrinal monopoly was a slow descent into corruption, including the sale of Church offices and opportunities to ‘buy’ your way into Heaven. An associated trend was a decline in intellectual rigor, scholarship and reasoning.
Finally, somebody got fed up. A theologian named Martin Luther, basing his reasoning on good scholarship and careful reasoning, rejected the notion that a person could establish their relationship with God only through the Catholic Church. Luther and Protestant theologians advanced the novel idea that people could establish a closer relationship with God and the teachings of Jesus through direct examination of both the New Testament and their own conscience.
Although taken for granted by most contemporary people, it was appallingly heretical by the Catholic hierarchy when it first emerged. They had no way of fitting it into their worldview. It challenged the Church’s monopoly over Christian thought. The idea that a person could find their own relationship with the Almighty without the intervention of clergy was anathema. In response they branded Protestants as heretics, Satan-worshippers, etc. – as it was the only way they could fit Protestantism within their limited worldview. They were psychologically incapable of of seeing the good points of this argument or understanding that a person could be both a good Christian and a non-Catholic.
The result was centuries of war and misunderstanding, before the idea of freedom of religion, live-and-let-live, became accepted.
Something similar seems to be happening with the challenge to Feminism that the MRM presents. The MRM breaks the monopoly in the debate over how gender is ‘constructed’ and/or how equality is achieved between people of different genders. The MRM posits that men have their own concerns, their own worldviews, their goals and ways of breaking out of gender stereotypes and roles assigned to men, their own take on equality and human rights. The MRA posits that one can be both in favor of human rights for women as well as for men.
This seems to be extremely threatening on an intellectual level to some (not all) people who profess to be feminists. They assume that gender roles, constructs and relationships can only be examined within a framework of feminist thought. Some of them simply don’t know how to fit the MRM into their worldview, not realizing – or perhaps, simply not accepting – that it’s their worldview that is in need of adjustment. Their discomfort and confusion drives them to search relentlessly for the smallest nugget of evidence to brand MRAs as misogynist, homophobic and racist. In the same way the Protestant challenge drove the Catholic hierarchy to brand all Protestants as in league with the devil.
It’s easier that way. There is nothing you have to change in your worldview. Nothing you have to re-think. Nothing that has to change.
The confusion and discomfort is also evident when they claim, ‘If you want to achieve better rights and conditions for males, you must do it through feminism and by working with feminists.’ It’s like the Catholic Church saying to Luther, ‘If you want to have a closer relationship with God, you must only do it through the Church.’
Many people and most MRAs (obviously), see no reason for this. Why there should be only one avenue for addressing male issues and men’s concerns. And why, for goodness’ sake, should the only avenue open to thinking about men be one constructed by people who have been exclusively concerned with women’s issues for the past 50 years.
Some feel, as did some of the early Protestants felt about the Church, that Feminism is irrelevant to addressing men’s issues and men’s sense of identity; others, like some other early Protestants, feel Feminism itself IS the problem.
I don’t know how this debate will resolve itself, but there is no doubt that the discussion and openness to ideas will be beneficial to all.
Thanks for explaining it Ginkgo! It’s an interesting thread this one. This is off-topic but CMOS222’s comment reminded me of a very good documentary I saw not so long ago. (The only uploaded version I can find on youtube is slightly low-res but, still, hopefully good enough.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lW-eLzkHk4
on a related note.
wasnt it extra ordinary to read chuck ross’ (glpiggy) 14august interview of hugo s.
it would not surprise me to see hugo rebrand as a egalitarian nonfeminist(whether mra or not). others have joked about this before.
it felt like hugo was sniffing out the level of commentors subconscious-encouragement, to see whether he might change pews.
@ ChrisM
“I get the feeling feminism has glommed onto and reappropriated quite a few different women’s movements in its time.”
Not just women’s movements. They’ve tried to appropriate the civil rights struggle. One of the arguments for giving women suffrage was that wealthy white woman couldn’t vote, but black men could. Are you really surprised that the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s followed the civil rights struggle of the 50s and 60s?
Now feminists (seemingly all white, middle class, women) are claiming that they’re concerned with racial and sexual identity discrimination. They don’t have a problem with black men like Brian Banks being railroaded into confessing to a rape he didn’t commit. How many feminists decided to vote for the black man instead of the white woman during the 2008 democratic primary? I’m pretty sure you could determine that largely by race. Why are trans men excluded from feminist events?
” How many feminists decided to vote for the black man instead of the white woman during the 2008 democratic primary?”
During this time I was very much into politics and especially left leaning blogs. From what I observed, internet liberal feminist mainly supported John Edwards then switched to Obama. Hillary was mostly hated by the lefty internet feminists I interacted with. If someone supported Hillary they were run out of some places because only a red neck racist from West Virginia wouldn’t vote for a black man. I found the 2008 democratic primaries to be a very politically eye opening period.
Looks like they have egg on their face and are desperately making an omelet out of it.
Too little, too late I’d say.
MOS222,
“The MRM breaks the monopoly in the debate over how gender is ‘constructed’ and/or how equality is achieved between people of different genders”
I didn’t catch this connection at first but the implications are illuminating. it emans we can expect or perhaps are already seing a Counter-reformation. That Counter-reformation will also 1) co-opt the points of the MRM that get traction and 2) double down on the forms – in ths case the teminology and memplex – of feminism.
If the MRM sticks to substance instead of getting wounds up in personalities and personal politics, this should not matter. Sun Zi said:
是故百戰百勝，非善之善也﹔不戰而屈人之兵，善之善者也。
“Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
@ debaser71
“From what I observed, internet liberal feminist mainly supported John Edwards then switched to Obama.”
Funny because I witnessed the exact opposite. Most female feminists (and maybe this is where we see two different things) supported Hillary. We know organizations such as Emily’s List are set up specifically to elect female politicians.
I hope this fits in here: the Good Men Project published an interesting article, which asked: what to do, when your wife hits you. Unfortunately GMP feminists and VAWA supporters haven’t shown up yet to discuss this question. Still one comment highlights why many women aren’t suited to discuss certain male issues like violence:.
Here the comment
Now I don’t think the woman (and yes it is almost certainly a woman)is a bad or callous person, but it seems to me as if she has the luxury to go through life oblivious to the facts, that sometimes violence is necessary and good, and sometimes you deserve to be hit (if you are male, that is).
By the way, the Patriarchy’s coment on this topic is 1is2many
“I didn’t catch this connection at first but the implications are illuminating. it emans we can expect or perhaps are already seing a Counter-reformation. That Counter-reformation will also 1) co-opt the points of the MRM that get traction and 2) double down on the forms – in ths case the teminology and memplex – of feminism.
If the MRM sticks to substance instead of getting wounds up in personalities and personal politics, this should not matter.”
———-
Unfortunately, it might matter. Mainstream feminism has a history of doing stuff like this, first to black feminism/womanism, and more recently to trans feminism. The problem is, it often amounts to tokenism, watering down key points to make them palatable to white cis feminists, and selectively borrowing some things and pretending others don’t exist. The things ignored or diluted can be extremely important to those groups. It’s certainly better than doing nothing, but it could be a highly qualified “victory” if white cis feminists still get to keep the lion’s share of their princess privilege.
I’ve decided to give up arguing with feminists after reading Sexual Personae. All the points (or most of them) that I want to make have already been made 20 years ago, and if they didn’t listen to them coming from a distinguished lesbian academic, they sure as hell won’t listen to them coming from an anonymous internet dudebro. Let them have their miserable little cult – some people just don’t get it, no matter how hard you try to help them.
Welcome, inappropriate.
“I’ve decided to give up arguing with feminists after reading Sexual Personae”
Very good point. That nails it. It’s like Jesus telling the rich man in hell when he implores him to go warn his relatives still alive, and Jesus says they already have the law and the prophets and that should be enough for anyone to act decently.
Welcome, harrow! Very glad to see you here.
“Unfortunately, it might matter.”
Your comment sums up the risk pretty well. The challenge is to keep feminisit in their place, which is the same as everyone’s – pulling in the same direction and not trying to set the agenda for anyone else.
This especially:
” It’s certainly better than doing nothing, but it could be a highly qualified “victory” if white cis feminists still get to keep the lion’s share of their princess privilege.”
This is where there is hope, since the MRM takes dead aim at princess privilege where feminism just enshrined and entrenched it. In fact this is probably the key to keeping the MRM honest.
“I’ve decided to give up arguing with feminists”
I’m heading that way. I like discussing stuff and thrashing it about in my head, trying to see where theories are valid and where they’re just useless, but I’m getting tired at the poor responses from feminists. I’m currently on Ally’s blog looking at Rape Culture and the types of things that would come under its banner, but I’m just getting word games and people changing definitions for no discernable reason to try and discredit my point.
I can put up with abuse, and general stupidity from feminists – I have no problem with that. What’s starting to put me off talking to them is the lack of *challenge*.