Anti-Feminist Anger

[Guest Raidne]

I suppose it's actually more like contempt than anger anyway, hence the inability for the two sides to get anywhere after umpteen pages of discussion. And before anyone, i.e. Shryke, wants to argue that it's not contempt, I don't think it's disputable that the POV expressed is that the anthem/language issue is worthless, i.e. contemptible, i.e. thought by everyone asked to be "fucking stupid."

That's more the response that I usually see - "Oh look, there's those feminists again, protesting something only they could get upset about [cue laughter]."

This has been hard to distinguish through the thread, really - there's been this idea that it's bad messaging, because other people think it's "fucking stupid," and then every so often there's the admission that the speaker himself, and all his friends, think it's "fucking stupid."

It's a little intellectually dishonest that these two disparate viewpoints are getting conflated depending on which is more expedient to the argument the speaker is making, e.g. in the face of arguments about the cognitive effects of language, then it's the former, but as soon as that recedes a few pages, we're, unsurprisingly, back to the latter.

[Ser Reptitious]

Shryke,

(For example, the reaction of anyone I've talked to (man or woman) when the whole "Canadian National Anthem" thing comes up is the same: "That's just fucking stupid")

I wonder if the sentiment would be the same if men had been historically surpressed by women and our national anthem had the words "thy daughters" instead?

My guess is you'll respond with "of course", but I doubt that men would really be that accepting of playing second fiddle, especially where symbolism is concerned.

[Guest Raidne]

I am curious to see if he'll respond with his own contempt, or retreat to the "oh it's not me - it's that it makes feminism unsympathetic to other people" argument.

*waits*

[Lord Mord]

It occurs to me that anger is always the responsibility of the person getting angry. So, regardless of how it's worded, I think the most effective question ends up being, "Why do you choose to get angry over the moves that feminists make?"

Surely, if you can agree that, however pointless or obstructive it seems to you right now, the point is technically valid that it's sexist, then what good does it do you or anyone to be mad about it? I mean, it's your right, I don't mean to diminish that aspect, it's just ... It's also your right to, I don't know, burn your fingers, or stick your dick in your fly and try to zip it up, but you don't do those either. So ... why get mad?

[john]

I wonder if the sentiment would be the same if men had been historically surpressed by women and our national anthem had the words "thy daughters" instead?

My guess is you'll respond with "of course", but I doubt that men would really be that accepting of playing second fiddle, especially where symbolism is concerned.

So if men, in that position, wouldn't say it was stupid, then it can't be stupid? :P

[TheKassi]

Well, but how often does asking nicely work? Excuse me please, we'd like the right to vote. If you don't mind, we'd like to be considered equal. I know it's troublesome, but we'd like acknowledgement that we are capable of rigorous and/or scientific thought. When you have a free moment, we'd like to hold property in our own right, and not be someone else's property. This may sound harsh, but we'd like bodily autonomy. And as another example, since many feminists aren't anti-men: pardon me, but could all parents please be treated equally when it comes to benefits until a genuine reason for a difference has been shown, rather than making assumptions based on gender?

These things are not associated with modern day feminism, they are for the most part truisms. If Obama came out tomorrow and announced that he was pushing through an amendment to The Constitution that would overturn The Nineteenth, America would collectively go insane, including most men currently defined as male chauvinists.

Modern day feminism is associated with arguing half the species is oppressed or excluded by one word in a song, and how politically incorrect that beer or car advertisement is, usually over the vast indifference or even scorn of an overwhelming majority of women.

At the end of the day, it is akin to the moment the Objectivists show up during a debate about economics. Even if you are preaching the superiority of capitalism, your face falls into your palms the instant you hear “But Ayn Rand said!”

That is actually a pretty good analogy for where anti-feminism anger, for both men and women, comes from. Modern day feminism is to femininity as objectivism is to capitalism. It is hard enough to be taken seriously as a shark while being five foot one and ninety eight pounds without having someone show up in a huff about how insensitive the idiot box is to my plight.

[kungtotte]

I wonder if the sentiment would be the same if men had been historically surpressed by women and our national anthem had the words "thy daughters" instead?

My guess is you'll respond with "of course", but I doubt that men would really be that accepting of playing second fiddle, especially where symbolism is concerned.

I'm not Shryke, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. I think it would be a different ball-game, because like it or not men and women are different. Not different in a "there ought to be discrimination" kind of way, just different.

I think that men, for the most part, care more about tangible things such as the imbalance in custody agreements. Any situation where you can point to something and say that we can't do this because we are men, or we have to do this because we are men. Suffrage, property rights, bodily autonomy, basically everything Peggy mentioned in the first paragraph in her previous post.

So yeah, in this alternate reality of yours where the masculinists (it'd have to be masculinists, right?) are struggling to achieve equality for men, I think the sentiment would be mostly the same. Things first, language second.

[TheKassi]

I'm not Shryke, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. I think it would be a different ball-game, because like it or not men and women are different. Not different in a "there ought to be discrimination" kind of way, just different.

I think that men, for the most part, care more about tangible things such as the imbalance in custody agreements. Any situation where you can point to something and say that we can't do this because we are men, or we have to do this because we are men. Suffrage, property rights, bodily autonomy, basically everything Peggy mentioned in the first paragraph in her previous post.

So yeah, in this alternate reality of yours where the masculinists (it'd have to be masculinists, right?) are struggling to achieve equality for men, I think the sentiment would be mostly the same. Things first, language second.

To be fair, that is what feminists did. Our great great Grandmothers marched to get the vote in 1919. it wasn't until 2010 that their great great Granddaughters invoked their name to go after the Canadian national anthem.

Men and women are not so different. There are guys who bitch and moan about how they are portrayed on lifetime, or how they are the designated buffoons of the marital themed situation comedy, and who go into rants when the “Choosy moms choose Jiff” slogan plays, just as there are women who complain about television ads and rap music.

And there are men who fight to address the inequities inherent in conflicts over child bearing and rearing, just as there are women who scrupulously watch for wage or hiring discrimination in what remains of the old boys club.

The size of the pie slices might be different, but it is still generally the same.

[kungtotte]

In my experience, guys only bitch and moan about how they are portrayed when feminists bring up an issue of equality, and almost all of the time the issue the feminists bring up is a more important one (such as wages and hiring discrimination, for example).

And amusingly enough, every time that has happened on this board, those men are shot down with comments about how the issues they bring up don't really matter compared to the issues the women face. :lol:

But I guess it's different.

[Guest Raidne]

These things are not associated with modern day feminism, they are for the most part truisms.

Well...no. This hasn't happened:

could all parents please be treated equally when it comes to benefits until a genuine reason for a difference has been shown, rather than making assumptions based on gender

As far as this:

Modern day feminism is associated with arguing half the species is oppressed or excluded by one word in a song, and how politically incorrect that beer or car advertisement is, usually over the vast indifference or even scorn of an overwhelming majority of women.

First, the issue I care most about is the one mentioned above. But beyond that, I also care a lot about language issues, generally, am happy that most academic disciplines, but not often my own, use gender-neutral language, and am really, really annoyed by Dr. Mom commercials and their ilk which will, more than any other single source, indoctrinate my children into traditional gender politics unless I can somehow prevent them from watching all TV.

Lastly, show me some data. You don't speak for the majority of women.

That is actually a pretty good analogy for where anti-feminism anger, for both men and women, comes from. Modern day feminism is to femininity as objectivism is to capitalism.

As a modern day feminist, I also care about being able to talk about being a woman without it being reduced to femininity - something any modern-day feminist, and I'm going to guess, the vast majority of women, would never do.

[TheKassi]

In my experience, guys only bitch and moan about how they are portrayed when feminists bring up an issue of equality, and almost all of the time the issue the feminists bring up is a more important one (such as wages and hiring discrimination, for example).

And amusingly enough, every time that has happened on this board, those men are shot down with comments about how the issues they bring up don't really matter compared to the issues the women face. :lol:

But I guess it's different.

Depends on perspective I guess. I will admit however that I mostly run into it when talk of “returning to the values of the founding fathers” comes up (which is about the only time I slip into what could be described by the annoying as a feminist rant) but only mostly.

As for the comment about hypocrites, my advice is to ignore them when possible.

[Kalbear]

I agree with you, Raidne - but I also think that a lot of people believe that this is what feminism means (in the same way that what liberal means something insanely different than what it is).

Feminism means what kungotte said as much as conservative means 'fiscally conservative' now. Feminism is by no means unique in this, but it's a term that has been largely allowed to be defined by its opponents.

[Guest Raidne]

Indeed, it has. Was it you that finally convinced me a couple of years ago that it wouldn't be so bad to switch to egalitarianism? I still need something about sex or gender in the word, and I hesitate to act like liberals switching to "progressive," but I can still see the merits in that.

Also, if women younger than myself tend to agree with Kassi, I'm a little distressed when comparing that to my own generation who made an effort to really learn about the movement, read what there was to read, and took a class or two. Here, it seems like one can extrapolate how the world works from their own subjective take on their own personal experiences, without even learning what a feminist awakening is.

I think it's natural though - when you're so close, and so many first-line readily apparent things have been solved, I can see how a group would turn hostile to the worldview that says they are still disadvantaged. It is difficult, and easier on the ego to just ignore (for as long as you can get away with it).

[Kalbear]

I think - I hope - that the future of feminism is global more than anything else. I see glimmers of this, but it's a pretty hard thing to fight; how do you fight for Feminism in Afghanistan?

(and no, I'm not the person who suggested egalitarianism, though that's a decent (if not catchy) idea.)

And yeah, it does bug me that many feminists fight losing battles. It's certainly why I turned away from libertarianism, or at least a big part of it.

[kungtotte]

Indeed, it has. Was it you that finally convinced me a couple of years ago that it wouldn't be so bad to switch to egalitarianism? I still need something about sex or gender in the word, and I hesitate to act like liberals switching to "progressive," but I can still see the merits in that.

Why? Isn't it better with a more neutral term that can be applied to any sort of struggle for equality? Pooling the resources, if you will.

[Lady Blackfish]

I am obviously late to the party and I unfortunately don't have the time to contribute much, but for what it's worth, more young women are calling themselves feminists today than ever before. That should count for something.

[TheKassi]

Why? Isn't it better with a more neutral term that can be applied to any sort of struggle for equality? Pooling the resources, if you will.

Humanism, AKA refusing to advocate equality selectively, works for me. That however is only because “Fuck bigots” was taken by the klu klux konnect dot com.

Bastards.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Why? Isn't it better with a more neutral term that can be applied to any sort of struggle for equality? Pooling the resources, if you will.

For me, it's precisely because it is so broad. Anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-ableism, anti-Semitism, all of these (and more) fall under egalitarianism, but they're not the same things. There are plenty of directions and viewpoints already, without muddying the waters further.

Which isn't to say that they're totally separate experiences, either. However, just because I have first-hand experience of sexism and have seen racism first-hand doesn't mean I actually have experienced racism, or that I don't benefit from hetero- and cissexual privilege.

[Lady Blackfish]

Personally call myself a feminist and a humanist. And an anti-racist, etc.

Is the issue "Don't say 'feminist', say 'humanist'"? Or "You can say 'feminist', but I say 'humanist'"?

[Guest Raidne]

I am obviously late to the party and I unfortunately don't have the time to contribute much, but for what it's worth, more young women are calling themselves feminists today than ever before. That should count for something.

Good news! That's a load off - thanks for the info.