If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Christina Hoff Summers (herself a feminist much derided by other feminists) wrote a good book called The War Against Boys which shows the abuses of feminist power, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies and Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from inside the Strange World of Women's Studies by Daphne Patai and someone else I can't remember.
Combined with reading stuff from the likes of Dworkin and Greer etc (even if it's just for the humour value), you should have plenty to think about. All of it is fairly light and shouldn't require much in the way of brain strain.
Bell Hooks - Ain't I a Woman (on Black feminism... it's fascinating and eye opening and also offers a critique of the white feminist movement)
Naomi Wolf - Beauty Myth
Ariel Levy - Female Chauvanist Pigs (not an amazing read... but thought provoking)
Germaine Greer - The Female Eunach (admittedly, ain't read that)
Simone de Beauvoir - The Second Sex (haven't read it either... will start it in a few weeks, but have been told this is one of the best)
Judith Orr - Sexism in the System (an introduction to Socialist Feminism and a very light read. She is also the editor of Socialist Review)
If you're interested in gender in general and a challenge to the conventional gender binary (and if you aren't easily embarassed to read sexually explicit material) check out Kate Bornstein's work. She's a MTF transexual and a brilliant writer. fascinating character.
Feminism gave women a voice and still gives women voices. That is incredibly important for emancipation.
I disagree. It's because people misinterpret what feminism is, feel threatened, or just go with right wing media interpretations. Feminism is really broad... You get a massive variation. But yeah, some idiots probably do get more attention, the same with some Muslim clerics, or some socialists... annoying innit.
Sure... "Typical man" is no different to saying "typical white" or "typical Jew" or "typical homo". It's a sad world we live in where people attack each other about gender, the size or slackness of sex organs and gender stereotypes.
And yet you recommend Germaine Greer as reading material?
Unpack the loaded meaning of social, political and economic equality and its easy to disagree with. Equal opportunities, certainly most people would agree with that (something which already exists), but there is a critical difference between equality of opportunity and equality itself.
You mean like the idiot you've just recommended reading? And if feminism incorporates such a wide variation of views, how then can you define it as seeking equality when evidently within that variation exist those misandrists who believe in supremacy, not equality? As I said numerous times on this thread...you have to find the common denominator to define a movement's aims - surely you would agree?
Do explain...
Please do go on and explain why she is an idiot. And I recommended it because it's one of the more famous books.
Because you can be a feminist and a misandrist, just like you can be a socialist and a racist. Some feminists hate men, some will also be racist, or anti-Semetic. Just because a woman is a feminist, does not make her a misandrist, just like if you're a misandrist, that doesn't make you a feminist.
Which movement? You being an expert on feminism would obviously understand that there have been several movements for the liberation of women and that there continue to be movements for this aim. No two movements are the same, other than they are in the interests of women's emancipation.
That is the common denominator. And which movement was specifically misandristic?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/16/gender.germainegreer
You can read all the dictionaries in the world to see what they define feminism as, you can read all the feminist literature in the world to try and discover what feminism actually means. But at the end of the day, a word and peoples reactions to it are defined by what the lay person on the street who hasn't got the time or inclination to read hundreds of books on the subject believes a word means, rather than its 'true' definition. From my experience, the average person on the street would define feminism as a movement for women's rights, with little or no regard for men's rights. The rant assumes that the general public defines feminism in the same way that the dictionary does. If the general understanding out there about feminism is that it is a movement which oppresses men, is it any wonder that the average person in the street wants to distance themselves from it? We're in a time which promotes equality, and feminism does not suggest equality to many people, it suggests women's rights over men's.
I'm with shyboy on this one, even the word feminism is biased towards women and doesn't suggest equality to many people.
Just because nine out of ten people think that a yam is a casava, does not make a yam a casava. Just because a few people use casva in a dish which traditionally used yam, does not make a yam a casava.
If people want to make a huge generalisation and criticism about feminism which holds more ground, they would be better to say that so many feminist writings can be considered ethnocentric... A statement which is far more intelligent and far more observant than the victim-complex argument that feminists are oppressing men or wish to.
Again, whilst this criticism could be made especially with the fight for women's suffrage in the USA, feminist movements will be different elsewhere.
Still consider her good reading?
Why wouldn't I? it was an interesting article.
I could post up the SCUM Manifesto and it would have no real point as to proving or disproving what feminism is.
You don't have to agree with everything somebody says to find them interesting reading.
If it had been a bloke writing about how women are the cause of the worlds problems, how women are surplus to requirements and that women dream of a world without men you'd be up in arms tellign us all what a mysogynst the writer was.
Instead you say it was an "intresting article".
Don't you see this is precisely the reason why people are reluctant to call thesmelves feminists and the reason why people look at feminism with such suspicion. Because of articles like this and idiots such as Greer the lines between feminism and misandry are blurred. If Greer's not the best person to champion the true meaning of femisism why is there so much support for her, or certinaly lack of critism?
No I wouldn't... I'd challenge it, but wouldn't throw my toys out of the pram... Why? Because freedom of speech is golden (even for the BNP and anti-semite like Irving in my view). You don't know me, so it's pretty unfair to assume how I will react, no?
Men do cause the majority of the problems in the world and why? Because men have power. White people were responsible for colonialism... Why? because white people were in the position to colonise.
I don't see this issue with that and object more to Greer's position on sexuality than on the fact that the majority of shit that goes in happens because of the people in power who mostly are men.
Maybe it would be the same, worse, or better if women were in control. We just don't know because it hasn't happened...
But let's face it... Men make the rules in the majority of circumstances... Men rape, men start wars, men rule the churches, in most countries men are the leaders and so on... But ignoring the biological determinist argument that it is genetic, it is more likely that it has to do with power relations than anything.
That is not misandry, that is fact. If you want to pull out statistics which say otherwise then go ahead.
The world was fucked up by white men and it continues to be fucked up by (mostly) white men, or dictators that white men are supporting or helped to put in to power. Increasingly, in a few countries women are gaining more control, but one fact still remains...
It's a man's world.
And that is my view, being a feminist who believes in female equality. However, this is not an issue of working towards equality, but a realisation of a global hegemony which exists to benefit a certain group.
To be fair she's actually saying that it would be a massively negative thing to have a world without men. She's arguing against a biological seperatism, not in favour of it.
And to be fair Skive, you described the article as interesting reading so I don't see why namaste should be unable to describe it as an interesting article.
It's an attack on men in general.
"Men are more trouble than they're worth"
"Men dream of a world without women"
Common, it's misandry. Acknowledge it when you see it.
Well to be fair Jim, I wasn't the one that suggested Greer as good reading on the issue of feminism. My stnce on that articale was pretty clear, Namaste's wasn't. What has the article got to do with the idea of equality - nothing. It's rant about the evils of men.
An Namaste I can accept that a lot of the worlds troubles in recent history were caused by white men, but as you say it's because they're that have generally held the power to create them. It's has noting to do with being white though, or having a penis.
I don't think many woudl disagree with the statement that Muslims represent the biggest terrorist threat in the world today, but that's not an excuse to bash muslims in general?
I don't have an issue with equality of the sexes. You don't need to spout man hating crap to achieve that though.
I read a few of Greer's articles last night and tbh, she just wants to have an opinion on anything. She even had a rant about the colour pink. If people want to get offended by something it's fairly easy to. I will pick up the female eunach when I get a chance but I'm not too fond of her whiny accusative writing style, she just has to moan about something
:thumb:
No, you're quite right, it isn't. That wasn't what I said though, I never said that it was right that the general public's perception of the word Feminism is that the movement is anti-men. I just said that this is how the word is viewed, which might go some way to explain why people might want to distance themselves from it. I'm not arguing about how things should be, I'm suggesting how things are.
No-one believes in biological determinism, but you believe in social determinism.
Ah that's right, it's white men to blame. :rolleyes:
The world's always been fucked up and only a fool would deny it. Not unless you believe in the idiocy that humans were peaceful and egalitarian pre-civilisation, which seems to be what you're implying?
To deny that would be pretty ignorant, no?
How so?
Why shouldn't she be read?
I've seen Greer speak and spoken to her... I found her quite cold and snobby to be fair, but just because you disagree with a stance does not mean that their work was not extremely important at the time.
Also, her work was empowering for a lot of (middle class white) women, even if it may seem dated now and if she has controversial views.
Might have something to do with the fact that Communists believe it is the States function to serve the interests of the people whereas Anarchists don't believe there should be a State in the first place.
What is there to prove by saying that? White men are also behind some of the greatest inventions and cures to disease that have saved millions. Will we give them a pat on the back for that?
Great response, well done. :thumb:
Did you even read what I wrote?
Follow the thread innit.
I'm not attacking white men as a group, so why bother defending white men as a group?
Why bring them up then? I didn't defend them either, read my post.