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
I didn't, for example, realise the Aztecs were white, nor that the Arab slave trabe was conducted by white Europeans, come to that the eradication of the Bush Pygmies by the zulus was managed with no white men in site.
The idea that the world is paradise and then along come the Europeans and ruin it, is only true if you actually ignore any historical reality.
People of every race, colour and creed have fucked and committed evil. Sadly we are all brothers under the skin...
Umm... "deranged homosexual man-hater"?
When you follow up the insult "deranged" with the word "homosexual" it looks particularly offensive, as if you're a Victorian screaming "Damn that deranged HO-MO-SEX-U-AL!" To demonstrate with a different word: "deranged black man-hater". Either work on your word order, or stop being a homophobic bore - whichever applies to you.
Rhetoric is funny; you mention Dworkin, to vamp the "ooohhh, hisssss" quota, then the end of your sentence mentions someone "defended and heralded not only on these forums, but by the movement generally" ... but of course you're speaking of Germaine Greer by that point, via a process of bizarre evolution. We're supposed to accept that because you mention Dworkin (hisssss) then say Greer respected her, that it directly follows that these two women can be equated in their - in your opinion - disgusting, probably ho-mo-sex-u-al morality. It then of course follows (of course, of course!) that feminism is in dire straits.
You neglect to mention, during this woe woe woeful indictment, that Dworkin was almost universally despised by 'the feminist movement'. So the line from Dworkin to Greer to Oh Dear Look How Bad Feminism Is wilfully misleads. You don't have anything more than inductive reasoning, more commonly known as appalling generalisation.
In actuality Andrea Dworkin is worth reading, by the way, as people labelled as crazy often are. Most of us don't suffer from auto-assimilation of what we read; people are capable of reading, stepping back, reflecting - deciding for themselves.
Whoever has the power does the fucking up.
Amen brother! (or sister if you prefer
The debate has kind of spiralled out of control now hasn't it
Sigh. I wish I could write an essay on feminism instead of fair trade. Fair trade it seems is actually a bad thing :chin:
And whoever doesn't...
And whilst I'm not convinced by Aladdin's Whig view of history in the 'give peace a chance thread' he does have a point in that the world today is much more civilised and less bloodthirsty than it was, say, five hundred years ago.
Greer put forward a bunch of accusations against men which are founded because men have the privilidge to do such things (read the article, or if you have you'll know what I mean).
Which was the point I was trying to make until people took it out of context and assumed I was attacking white men...
I think it does depend on the country you're speaking of however and the context... But that is a whole other debate.
When asked for good reading on the subject of feminism Namaste, you remomended somebody that's quite cleary a misandrist. If you want people, especially men to believe in feminism do you really think that's the most appropriate suggestion?
Feminism suffers from famous feminists shouting man hating bollocks.
That is sort of the point I was trying to make. People try to distance themselves from feminism because some people who call themselves feminists use the movement as an excuse to men-bash, regardless of what feminism was originally designed to do.
For instance, I would say that I believe that both genders should be equal. But I would find it difficult to call myself a feminist, because I don't think that is what feminism means in the eyes of many. Many people can only hear the voices of the feminists who talk the loudest, and say the most controversial things (everybody loves a bit of controversy, so those particular views are the ones which seep into the general public's consciousness). You can argue until you're blue in the face about what feminism 'should' mean and what the public 'should' believe, but sadly, this is the way it is and I don't want to be associated with some of the more outrageous views, and so that is why I would not describe myself as a feminist.
How do you work that out? Don't women often take time off after giving birth which can affect their career? Isn't it possible that a lot of professions have a male/female imbalance because women tend not to be interested as much as men?
The only way you can reach a 50/50 balance is, as i've said, through positive discrimination, and the only way to ensure equality of pay is through government wage-fixing and a system of taxation to support childcare.
Come on. Society can't work without a power structure and equality can only be enforced through government action. It's lunacy.
Where have I claimed to know so much?
Errr...I've already listed plenty.
No, that's four. And I quoted plenty of others, on this thread and in related threads previously.
Though were it even just a couple, that would still vindicate what I've been saying about the need for a re-definition.
Dworkin being a lesbian has relevence.
Wrong - the quote is in reference to the contention that Dworkin, Greer & their ilk are not 'real' feminists on account of their blatant misandry. Something you would know, had you read the thread and not lept out of your seat.
You don't even understand what the quote you have posted refers to - go back to sleep!
Well, it has some relevence, in that she's the archetype of a man-hater. And that's not to say all lesbians hate men - which is certainly not the case. But a disproportionate number do.
Now that's a statement I would like to see evidence for
I'm speaking from personal experience. And I'm not having a dig at lesbians either.
:yes: I agree - personal experience doesn't cut it for a statement like that I'm afraid.
So you have looked back on your personal experiences with lesbians and found that a disproportionate of them were men-haters. Give me a break, mate.
Sure. There is truth in the stereotype and only a fool would deny it - not that this is even relevent to the thread.
I am so glad that less people hold views like this than used to.
Replace the word 'lesbian' with the word 'black' or 'Jew', is it still so cool to make a statement?
Thought not.
Nasty little boy.
:rolleyes:
Speaking as somebody who (technically) is a lesbian, who knows a lot of lesbians and who posts on a lesbian and bisexual messageboard, my experiences are far different.
Speaking as an activist who is also a student and who focusses heavily on women's studies and also somebody who knows people in feminist activist groups, my own experiences also contradict Spliffie's claims.
Yet still, the plural of anecdote is not data and claims about a group being more likely to hate is not functional in the least.
I think the idea that lesbains hate men is a stereotype perpetuated by a few lone radical lesbian feminists, and to suggest as Spliffie did that stereotypes often have basis in fact is a valid point. Not vile or nasty really.
Are a disproportionate number of the most outspoken and recognised feminists lesbians? I don't know.
Gay women have fathers and brothers after all, so I don't think there's some universal rule that gay women hate men, they just don't want to sleep with them.
Spliffe didn't say that a disproportionate number of the most outspoken and recognised feminists are lesbians. He said that a disproportionate number of lesbians are men-haters. That's a very different thing.
To be honest man (and sorry for using you as an example) - when I've seen gypsies described as thieves or criminals based on a tiny proportion of the population that are used as a stereotype I've seen you rightly be outraged.
I don't see that as different to when we get hateful and racists posters posting stories of rape and 'personal opinion' to prove that black men are disproportionately rapists or Jewish people money grabbing Fagans or gay men pedophiles. There are some statements so obviously offensive that they do require evidence.
So I'm still not sure why it's valid to agree with an untrue and unfounded stereotype about lesbians but feel it's unacceptable for another group.
The reason there's no evidence to produce is that it's untrue.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply that feminism equates to man hating.
I havn't read enough books to really know but I thought Spliffies train of thought was that a lot of outspoken/famous feminists who are very critical of men and male culture are also lesbians.
It's IS a sterotype. And that's what I thought he was commenting on.
Namaste, I don't know why you are taking such offence - I am not commenting on you or having a dig at lesbians in general. Nothing I've said ranks in comparison with what the feminists I have been mentioning on this thread have said about men. Not very egalitarian surely?
That's a direct dig at lesbians in general. I'm not sure why you've decided to try and defend your stereotyping but it's totally unacceptable here.
I think you have to accept this is just an offensive stereotyping of lesbians or as others have asked provide some evidence of why a disproportionate number of lesbians apparently hate men.
Otherwise you're just perpetuating a homophobic stereotype that has no place or relvance in this debate.
And to make it clear - the people you are quoting aren't members of this community and aren't bound by its rules - you are.
It would be more relevant to ask - do a majority of heterosexual people hate homosexuals - which is something quantafiable. Using the term disproportinate allows an arguement to sound like it's based on some kind of face whilst simply being based on stereotypes.
If someone said majority or even siginificant minority then it allows you to genuinely argue against the viewpoint as something real or ask for evidence for something that might be offensive. It's really not a very acceptable way to post with the rules that exist on this site.
:rolleyes:
Just because you have (allegedly, without so far showing any proof other than you think Wolf is a hypocrit for wearing makeup WTF?) read a few misandristic polemics does not legitmise you to subscribe to the same hatred, only on a smaller and more vulnerable part of the population. Fortunately for you, an easy target.
And anyway, why are you even defending what you've said? YOU are not living as a gay woman, you're just making shallow assumptions... How would you react if these statements were made about somebody's skin colour?
Meh...
There are some male orientated gay clubs in London which won't let women in and like everywhere, misogyny exists on this part of the 'gay scene' (mainstream).
I know a couple of people upset by that statement.