Men banging on sanctimoniously about feminism and/or sexism: classic or dud?

if it's a man santimoniously shouting "all men are shit", than obviously he's a shit

but surely this annoyance should transcend gender, and does any one woman on their own know what all women wants?

No. Hence my single status.

And yes Ken, the annoyance transcends gender, it's just very rare for a woman to bang on sanctimoniously about men's rights.

I don't either providing they're good looking enough.

Erm, you know... there might be a reason for that! Jesus, enough with the faux equivalence.

xpost

x-post

ditto stupid, sanctimonious, etc.

X-post, i agree w/strongo's last post.

I had a very large row with an entire organization once because they didn't think men had any role to play in ending violence against women. Whereas it is my steadfast belief that, while women have a huge role to play, men abusing women will only stop when MEN learn to STOP abusing women.

Yeah, of course sanctimosity is noxious and boorish, but if any progress is to be made we need to stop looking at the issue as men on one side, women on the other. We have to realize that, as Kurt Vonnegut used to say, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER, bub.

c-man is feminist leaning as far as always leaning against the females trying to cop a feel.

Right on. One of my BIGGEST peeves (more than a peeve, actually) is when people ask the question, "Why doesn't she leave him?" SHE doesn't have the problem!! HE DOES. The question SHOULD be "WHY DOES HE HIT HER?" not "Why doesn't she leave him?" It seems so fucking obvious, but people fault the woman anyway. Idiots.

smart lady, that jeanne fury.

i don't have a problem with male feminists at all, they're great and valuable to the cause.

i can think of a few guys who are "sympathetic" to feminism but will ride roughshod over women's perspectives on it as if they know better. however they're the kind of individuals who don't listen to anyone else on any subject matter.

Men I've met who are genuinely feminist tend to be more of the "Well, I don't really feel qualified to talk about feminism, but inequality sucks, fullstop" type.

Not to get too sanctimoniously bangin' here, but can't that sort of be a cop out sometimes?

Speaking for me does not make me confident that you are curious about what I actually think. My advice is that if you want to discuss this issue wiht me, then avoid making assumptions like this one. In fact, I am happy to explain my opinions, as I have done over and over again on ILX. But it tends to be a lot easier when you have specific questions.

Your original question was specious ("What makes you the judge of the intellects of so many people?") and boring.

Your intimations in your next statement directed at me ("You don't even support your arguments, or bother to explain how you have come to this conclusion") were so broad ranging in scope that I could not possibly address it in the confines of this forum or what my patience or time allows.

Finally, you have asked for "justification" of my views, which implies that my views are at least somewhat warrantless just because I have not spewn forth thousands of words defending my initial comments. I assure you that you will be waiting a lot time if you are expecting something that thorough.

That said, I am happy to discuss this further if you will ask more pointed questions.

(ts: a shiny red button that says 'press this and you'll kill all nonbelievers leaving the world a shiny happy place without anyone who'd trouble you' vs. a shiny red button that says 'press this and you'll kill all males leaving the world a shiny happy place without anyone who'd trouble you')

problem is, that applies to lots of other social+cultural phenomena. LOTS. marxism thatcherite animal rights islam michael moore bill o'reilly. but s'also true that when ideologies mask their hate in the sheep's clothing of social justice agendas, it feels like even more of a betrayal of humanist ideals.

don's post was dumb but kerry's was much dumber.

'Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relations with men, in their relations with women, all men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, their codes.'

'My feelings about men are the result of my experience.  I have little sympathy for them.  Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on.  I don't even need to shrug.  I simply don't care.  What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter.'

Congresswoman Barbara Jordan:

'I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it.  He's just incapable of it.'

Liberated Women, Boronia (Herald~Sun, Melbourne, Australia ~ 9 February 1996.):

'Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer?  They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it.  Now it is our turn.  My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck ~ and if you get in my way I'll run you down.'

a few from Robin Morgan, editor of MS magazine:

'I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero-sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary-vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do.'

'Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers.'

'I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.'

sheila jeffreys:

'When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression...'

Natalie Angier in a May 17, 1994 article:

"Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically, why doesn't he just go away?"

On June 21, 1998, Father's Day:

"The section you are reading is about women's health. And so what better place to address the question: Are they worth it?... Do we live better with men or without them?

Hilarious--I didn't make an argument yet "If you make a statement, you have to back it up with examples."

Kerry--if you would "simply ask questions" then maybe the discussion would continue. But until then, it's not very compelling to rely completely on assumptions. Especially yours when they relate to my statements.

many born-agains + feminists are attracted to dogma: they like the comfort of a belief system that tells them they're right + the chosen ones, gives them a lot of elaborate jargon to play with

um, yeah, but when I post this (in less detail but with obviously the same inferences) it's considered "dumb"? Okay.

Actually, the biggest problem with feminism are not the extremists and kooks that have given it a mouthpiece and irrelevance in society, but that is that it is utterly meaningless.

I did do just that. And then Kerry came at me with this:

"What makes you the judge of the intellects of so many people? You don't even support your arguments, or bother to explain how you have come to this conclusion."

As I have noted previously, the first question was completely specious. From Kerry's second statement, it's completely unclear what exactly Kerry wants to know (given the context of this forum.) For example, what part of my argument (and remember, Kerry later noted that I didn't make an argument, even though she posted that I did) needs support? The second half of that question is even more ridiculously vague and impossible to interpret.

Thus, I consider it completely appropriate to ask for more a more specific question.

"Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically, why doesn't he just go away?"
actually refers to a problem with an insect species. I read a spinsanity article about it.

i stand by the others though sym so do you have any clever retorts for them or are you just going to ignore them on the basis of some fantasy that they came from rush limbaugh?

equal pay for equal work isn't evil, but saying that all men should be killed sure is. if a man wrote something like that about women he'd be 'silenced'. so why should a woman be allowed to write it?

i have a theory on this but it's so depressing i don't want to go there.

i don't give a fuck about the thread title.

a metaphor for what, pray tell?

hate of all men isn't that well placed.

hate of the masculine *construct* (i.e. "maleness" as opposed to every single man) may be v. well placed, and unfortunately is often not distinguished.

after all feminists are some of the first to articulate their disdain for "femininity" as conventionally defined.

and don your statement that "feminism doesn't mean anything" is absurd on the face of it. it obviously does mean something, or even many things to many people including something to YOU which you happen to dislike.

i.e. a call for equality in employment and pay, for example, or for paid maternity leave is just that, regardless of what you think of the rhetoric of particular individuals who may support such a call.

or are you calling for equality in "silencing"?

My point is that feminism is so widely defined that it is ultimately meaningless. It has something to do with the female gender, but other than that the parameters are broad. As someone posted, feminism is to a large degree whatever you want it to be, which reduces it to a near absurdity.

When someone tells me they are a feminist, I don't know what to make of it because it means so many things to so many people. The movement has come to be defined by its fanatical and crusading voices, despite the wide variety of opinions that are encompassed by people who consider themselves feminists. So yes, feminism is integral to many people on their own terms but the movement as a whole seems disparate.

I don't think it's essentialism to suggest that there are gender-specific experiences and hence some sort of broad perspective that encompasses most people of that gender. Such gender differences might be socio-cultural, but that doesn't make them any less of a difference. The pattern of male and female lives is different and can be caracterised in certain ways - for example in terms of the type of work men and women tend to do, the money they're paid, the amount of time spent looking after children, etc., etc. These differences aren't set in stone, but they're still there.

quirkyalone: my new demographic?

i agree with you that there are gender-specific experiences, and that they are often socio-cultural, but because gender is lived and maintained differently in different cultures and even different parts of the SAME culture, i don't believe in a broad perspective encompassing most people of a gender. one of the most important critiques of second-wave feminism came from feminists who didn't relate to its white, western, het, middleclass bias eg third world feminists, lesbian feminists, working class feminists, afro-american feminists etc. some argued that they had more in common with men of their specific contexts than with mainstream/liberal feminists.

anyway i guess i hear you, i just think its a shame that you believe your "male" perspective precludes a feminist one. i, for one, wouldn't presume a man unable to sympathise with feminist concerns because of his gendered experience. surely men and women have some gendered experiences in common, even? eg many people - not just women - know what its like to not live up to hegemonic masculinity!

I am planning to get 'Almost as holy as The Other' carved on my headstone.

Is that just stating the obvious? Why does no one else say it?

http://www.harley-quinn.com/harlani.GIF