General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEmma Watson: Feminism can never succeed unless men are part of the conversation
“I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating,” said Watson. “If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop.
“For the record, feminism by definition is: ‘The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.’”
---
Watson continued that gender equality has not yet been reached in any country, and it never will be so long as “only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation”, going onto to note prejudices that come with being a man.
“Men - I would like to take this opportunity to extend your formal invitation,” she said. “Gender equality is your issue too.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/emma-watson-calls-on-men-to-help-end-gender-inequality-its-your-issue-too-9746926.html
“We don’t want to talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive, women won’t be compelled to be submissive. If men don’t need to control, women won’t have to be controlled.”
http://www.mtv.com/news/1937802/emma-watson-gender-equality/
You can read her entire speech here...
http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/us-canada/69726-emma-watson-gender-equality
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)The scheme of things. We talk it often, first.
Second? Tons of men participate and use their voice supporting women.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Men are also victims of the patriarchy as well as women.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and patriarchy and an inherent sexism, learned and conditioned within our system, we are going to talk about the assigned gender roles. i have so much empathy for the really messed up presentation of what "manhood" is today. i do not know that we could have messed up masculinity anymore than what we have for this generation. i have a 17 and 19 yr old son. very enlightened, insightful and expressive. we often... tons, talk about this issue.
they absolutely go hand in hand.
that is the silliness to suggest, ANY feminist that does not already know this, has not already studied the issue and done research and listened listened listened.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I have literally cringed at some of the things that have been said to men who are supporting women and women's rights....right here on DU. Everyone is not listening, or thinking about how many great men we have in our corner.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)I usually refuse to engage in those discussions, but just know that a lot of us are in the background thanking the men who are right there with us.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when you use sex negative to a group of women that are also the prude, the anti sex, the .... oh, what>>>> emotionally damaged.
you simply will not be well received. i do not apologize for that. i am allowed to stand up to insults you direct to me personally, and to a group of women.
that is not being a bully. unfair, unjust. that is us women LISTENING to you, and truly HEARING you. which is exactly what i said initially. we do listen. we have to listen. we have no choice as you try to define me as sex negative, and you dismiss me as a second waver.
right?
why do i get to be the bad guy, because i tell you no!
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I never said I was picked on or unable to respond. I can respond if someone hurls bigoted language at me of any kind. That does not excuse the bigoted language.
If the only way you can respond to a point of mine is to use a term like "mansplaining" first of all it means you have no counterpoint and I am right and second you have used a gender biased term fraught with negative stereotypes.
Its the equivalent of someone saying back to you "Oh, you're just a silly woman". Its a bullshit and gender-biased thing to say in an effort to dismiss someone.
And as far as the other stuff you raised, don't pretend the whole 2nd and 3rd wave discussion/argument and the terminology used is something I invented. This has been going on for at least 20 years. Don't say things to me you wouldn't say to a woman making the same arguments because there are a lot of 3rd wave women, including plenty here on DU making the same arguments.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)out as wronged headed, by about all facets of feminism and women, and men in generally. it is clear how it has been used as a weapon, against women. and in the academia, it is clear how SOME "feminist" men have used it to retain privilege, yet sit in progressivism.
and ya. it does matter. it matters when a man tells me he can call me sex negative, and i not only cannot be offended or say no.... but i am a problem, would be the very definition of mansplaining to me.
personally? i do not use the word. i do get the definition of it though.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And "mansplaining" is a term that is used for exactly those reasons. To be hateful toward the recipient and dismissive of anything that the person is saying without having to address any of the argument(s).
I understand why some would not want to let go of it. Like other biased terms its a simple way to dismiss someone without having to address their arguments. It's no doubt a powerful tool that way. Like, "oh, she's just a silly woman" or "Thats what a dumb N-word would say" or whatever. The discussion is over and the person is put down using biased language.
That isnt far from your reaction to men who use the same reasoning on the 3rd vs 2nd wave arguments that women do. When women use the same arguments, you actually respond to the arguments. When men use them, you use gender biased stereotypes to respond to them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You use it because you want to dismiss them and what they said.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)When you compare it to the put downs and insults and rape threats and death threats that come out of the woodwork when woman try to put forward their point of view. You are choosing to get hung up in trivialities because you don't want to deal with the real issues.
Bryant
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I see it in action almost every day.
alp227
(32,047 posts)what's your alternative to describing a concept that's described as: "men 'teaching women' — often about things directly related to women's experience (like sexism, or abortion) without any recognition of (or interest in) the woman's actual knowledge of the topic."
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)if and when it occurs.
Second, what you have described would seem to be a pretty narrow circumstance but is laced with several subjective terms and puts the woman in question in the position of being able to speak about all women based on their supposed superior experiences and knowledge which is in all likelihood not warranted.
Who decides when a man is "teaching" a woman or when they are simply discussing? Who decides when a man has offered no "recognition of a woman's actual knowledge of the topic". Why should a woman necessarily be able to speak for all women? In some cases that might be OK. But if it is, if she really has that knowledge and experience, why does she have to shut down the discussion with a gender biased term?
I was having a debate with a conservative woman on Glenn Beck's network when I cited a poll that said that even a significant amount of conservative women were concerned that Republicans weren't adequately addressing their rights. The person dismissed what I said because she was a conservative woman and she wasnt concerned. I looked at your definition. Should she have been able to accuse me of mansplaining? It seems like she should based on the definition you offered. In fact, she accused me of it without using the term. She shut down the discussion.
That is what terms like that do and that's the problem. Just because you are a member of a particular class doesn't mean you are right when that classes issues are being discussed. It's a convenient way of shutting down the discussion if you don't want to deal with the arguments. That's all it is.
ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)I like relavent history and how it effects the present. The term "manspaining" which has its place and time will go away, if men stop trying to explan the experience of being a woman. Many men are very good at this, they can sympathize, even educate from a meaningful point of view, without condescending, or try to be equivalent as far as experience. Your example is a red herring.
In the meantime, it's good to remember that most men were/are unaware of women's dissatisfaction. And once it hit the blogosphere, feminists found each other, feminism clearly not only wasn't conveniently "dead" but had a thriving and diverse community, that discusses, argues, agrees, disagrees, but works for change. Real change. Radical change. Positive change, painful change.
Men who where clueless absolutely did try to explain, deflect, minimalize, or outright dismiss real and very relavent issues. It's happened and continues to happen here, it's happened and continues to happen everywhere,
But it's far to late to stop--the next twenty years should be very interesting
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You can try to put all the positive spin on it you want. Some people try to put a positive spin on African Americans' time in slavery so it does not surprise me that people try to put a positive spin on all kinds of biased and bigoted phrases and actions.
It still amounts to using a gender biased phrase based on very subjective interpretation of what a man said in an effort to shut down the conversation and label someone negatively based on gender.
The few times I have seen the phrase used here on DU, including once or twice against me, it was not used as you and others have defined it. As you would expect with a term that allows one to shut down conversations and debates, its scope and use has creeped to the point that it is used anytime certain folks are in debates with men and are losing.
You don't need to use a phrase like this if the facts are on your side and you are winning.
ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)Still quite wrong.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)The world just isn't that simple.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)For instance, one can view sex as a fundamentally good thing (which I do, in general) while still acknowledging that our culture has some deeply messed-up ideas about it.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)BTW, I don't mean this line of questioning to be confrontational, I'm asking because I suspect we're in complete agreement but just use different language to express our ideas.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)and, ideally, more mutual. Or dividing all women into "good girls" and "bad girls" rather than acknowledging them as full, sexual, human beings just like men.
Just a couple of examples that come to mind.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Sex negativity encompasses a myriad of issues in our society. But one of those things is a negative attitude about women having sexual agency. If they choose to not have sex she's a "prude" or "good girl". If they choose to have sex, they're a slut or "bad girl". Either way, they're making a choice and our sex negative culture isn't okay with women having that choice. The same thing is behind the predator/prey dynamic.
Sex positivity is merely the idea that, so long as only consenting adults are involved, people should not be shamed for the sexual activities that they choose to engage in.
If people have called you sex negative for expressing concerns over what you've just told me you're concerned about, I think they fundamentally misunderstand sex negativity.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)I agree with this statement completely. And it's certainly a more thoughtful definition of "sex-positive" than the oversimplified "Anything sexual is automatically good, always, so just shut up!" definition that some people seem to use.
And I personally have never been called "sex-negative." I was just commenting on the oversimplifications and distortions which I've seen on DU and elsewhere.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)There is a lot of oversimplification, black and white thinking, and gut negative reactions on DU and elsewhere. It generally leads to a lot of bad discussion and a lot of bad feelings. And that's unfortunate, given that these are very important issues that should be discussed in a serious manner.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)I have also seen the term used by some women to silence male allies who happen to disagree on an issue. In that way, it's a lot like White Privilege.... it certainly exists, but hey, no one is perfect, and those who have been silenced and oppressed might be tempted to use its existence to unfairly push their position. But don;t mistaker that fore the the phenomenanon not existing.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)what the issue is, what they say in the past, and how much you can damn well bet i am going to speak up and out. you can post you "cringe" at the man hate or wtf ever, ... no links, and it really holds no weight. what they say in this thread, should alone raise a flag to any progressive, ..... and what they have said in the past, will warrant a challenge.
prove i do not value the great men on du. look at the threads in hof with our great men, discussing, and separately, us HUMBLINGLY thanking numerous times.
has everyone been perfect? has women been one voice? do we not all have our point, where anger.... might actually take forefront. and i ask.... on some of this shit, why are not every progressive on this board angry.
i listen. and i listen well. that is one of the tings that piss some..... SOME people of to the point of such hate, i have rape porn threats posted, i have men talking about my old uterus that cant be birthin' boys, and so many many more insults.
yet.... you reply to me, how us women simply do not listen nor value our man.
i know your position also. why do we pretend, as we are allowed to generally attack a group of women over nad over and over and over and still have the audacity to tell us how very very bad we are.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)And Hear Here! for Emma Watson. 
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)We only change things in the long term by persuading each other. Oppressed groups can "fight," but they can't change social norms by sheer confrontation alone.
It's a point worth making, given the sad preoccupation of a vocal few that members of the various groups that need to be part of the various conversations need to "shut up and listen" or something similar.
No one's getting anywhere, nor has ever gotten anywhere, standing with their tribe and complaining about the others in broad strokes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)when the privileged group won't listen. That's what they mean here. Don't take over (traditional man role) and start explaining to the women what feminism should be about.
alp227
(32,047 posts)doesn't that tactic work for right wing talk radio hosts? I've listened to guys like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, and they use terms like "the libs" or "the left" quite often. They attract millions of listeners every day on many major news/talk stations in America. You may say these hosts seek to preach to the choir rather than change minds, but how do you explain their shows being on mainstream radio stations? Because lots of people are predisposed to agree with them?
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)As I said, that doesn't get us anywhere.
Riling up a tribe to be contemptuous of the other "tribe" may be a ratings boon for rightwing pot-stirrers, but aren't those people we think are doing exactly the wrong thing?
And political groups are voluntary, so, at least in their philosophy, they can be generalized to a point -- a self-selected group like that is supposed to be like-minded.
Being male or female or gay or straight or of one ethnic background or another neither dictates nor validates or invalidates a person's point of view. Cultural identity informs point of view, and there's no problem with reminding people they have not, and really cannot, walk in the shoes of another.
But we do ALL NEED TO LISTEN to each other.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Women and men are equal and should have equal rights? The next thing you're going to say is that gay, lesbian, bisexuals and transgendered people should have equal rights too.
But more seriously, it is good to be inclusive. Almost by definition we won't be able to come together if either side believes it's losing with equality in a zero sum game, instead of growing our society by being inclusive.
I know my life is better off by having women who don't at all feel compelled to be submissive.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)Blossom? hates the movie..
justabob
(3,069 posts)It is a thoughtful speech and I think she's right. I suspect it will raise the hackles of some on both sides, but I am glad she is out there doing it, saying it. She kinda dings herself questioning why she was chosen.... the Harry Potter girl... which bothered me because Hermione is a great character (well played) and exactly why she was chosen. She is exceptionally smart, brave, and very strong character whom millions of boys and girls all around the world quite literally grew up with. Miss Watson is great for this job.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Thanks Dave. Will read later.
salib
(2,116 posts)And I am a man.
How are one half of the population left out?
This sounds pretty lame and is a stereotyping of women as "those who do not include men in the conversation."
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)It's a good speech, and a great Campaign:
The UN Women campaign called “HeForShe” aims to mobilize one billion men and boys as advocates of change in ending inequalities that women and girls face globally.
justabob
(3,069 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 22, 2014, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)
never mind
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)She said in regards to man-hating:
{snip}
Why has the word become such an unpopular one? I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men."
She's actually referring to the fact that many people won't proclaim themselves feminists because they're all too often referred to as man-haters. That's what she meant when she said this had to stop. Are there some women that are man-haters, yes there are and there are some men who are woman haters. However, the way you're quoting her is wrong and not at all the point she was making.
*Emphasis mine.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)they have always been a smaller sect of society. they have always been unpopular just for the fear of change. they have always been deemed as man hater, anti sex and every one of these comments. NONE of this is new. none.
why are we pretending otherwise.
we know who is defining feminism as man haters. limbaugh and so many other obvious.
i do not even get this conversation in this thread, to this point.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)I've read interviews where she's talked extensively on the the topic, I always liked what she had to say about it. I thought the OP highlighted the wrong sections of the speech, no big deal. I was glad to see her speech posted here, it's the first time I'd heard of it.
If the OP and others feel misunderstood and targeted and that's the reason this was posted as it was, I do feel for them; it's a complicated issue and it's easy to "say the wrong thing" in an attempt to make a valid point. That's the reason I stay out of the I/P issue, I don't understand it well enough to speak about it, and I certainly don't want to be called an anti semite in my attempt to empathize with Palestinians. So instead of jumping into the I/P fray, I read, I educate myself-
as it stands, the OP has twisted this Speech and Campaign into something it is not.
Emma Watson is actually talking to those who conflate man hating and feminism. She is not saying that Feminists hate men and that that has to stop: she is saying equating the two has to stop, hence her giving the definition of what Feminism is.
I understand where the OP is coming from if he feels under attack, but Emma is actually talking to you! You have misinterpreted her Speech, and you're using it to target HOF/Feminists as man haters who don't include men in the conversation. This is what HOF/Feminists are talking about when they say they feel baited and attacked.
This Speech and Campaign could have been a way to build bridges at DU...We all need to step back and realize we're on the same side side here and be kinder and more understanding of each other.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)It seemed like a very well thought out piece by Emma Watson.
salib
(2,116 posts)"Man-hating", only women ("half the population"
are allowed " to contribute", etc.
It is obvious.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and the selective editing leaves the impression that Watson is claiming that women aren't allowing men to participate, which of course is not at all what she was implying.
I can't say what the OP's motive was, of course.
salib
(2,116 posts)'Watson continued that gender equality has not yet been reached in any country, and it never will be so long as “only half of it is invited or feel welcome to participate in the conversation”, going onto to note prejudices that come with being a man."
That is half , not some (really immaterial) speech where 75% were women. Also, how is that meaningful anyway? Does that mean that all the incredibly numerous speeches where there were 75% men were a group that did not not want women to be part of the conversation? Really, listen to yourself, let alone the article.
Also, '“I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating,” said Watson. “If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop."'
So, feminism is man-hating? Or, at least "too often synonymous with" it? If that is the conclusion she came to, then it sounds more like she does not feel herself to be a part of the conversation.
I have not read the entire speech. Did not see a link.
Still, I stand by what I posted based upon what is presented here.
never mind
salib
(2,116 posts)And the article the OP selected to reference it does place a decided spin on it.
That said, the speech is fine. Likely at an appropriate level for the vast majority who have not spent much time thinking about or discussing these issues.
However, the reactions here are mostly, something like "yeah, we men are left out, see a woman said that some feminists are man-haters, it has to stop". And now we have "likewise not ALL men are cavemen bashing their women around. What I got out of the speech is that this is what has to stop" as a response. Huh? Who said anything here about cavemen? Why does it come immediately? And, why do you think that she said man-hating has to stop? The OP article really wants you to think that is what she said. However, read the speech without the (desire) that she would say that and you will realize that she was saying that the belief that feminism is man-hating is what is completely wrong and needs to stop. Of course, so many believe exactly that, and thus jump quite easily to the interpretation that feeds (reflects and reinforces) their beliefs.
Enough.
justabob
(3,069 posts)Cavemen was not in reference to this speech but to the level to which these discussions usually fall. I went on a tangent about how the discussion usually dissolves in these threads. I consider myself a feminist but like someone else upthread said, I cringe when I read what some of our posters here write in the name of feminism and what sounds a lot like hating to me. Likewise, we have some pretty condescending men who do not get it and do not want to get it. That is all. It is frustrating that the ugliest and most strident on both ends of the spectrum always drown out the rest.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I did not want to bother reading it. Very intentional edit, not surprised to see a woman's word's twisted like this to discredit feminists.
Same old shit.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)So fucking transparent.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Men can be part of the conversation. But some of them butt in to tell us what we should think. They act condescending.
salib
(2,116 posts)Does not even require a click!
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)"men can be part of the conversation as long as they say exactly what I want." A conversation, by definition, involves the consideration of different points-of-view. I could give plenty of examples, but that would be a callout that would likely be locked.
treestar
(82,383 posts)But men do need to listen rather than take over and start telling us what we want. That they are used to this due to prior gender roles can be considered. It is tough for a truly feminist man to disagree over something, but when it comes from a conservative viewpoint, we've already heard it all! We know men are "hard wired" for this or that and have been told over and over what we want by conservatives.
I don't see anyone would dare say white people need to be included in discussion of race relations or else it is hating of white people.
As soon as she said "man-hating" she turned me off. That's not what feminism is. That phrase is a cop-out for misogynists (and women can be that).
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Do you think men should explain to feminists how they are wrong?
Do feminists hate men?
You are dodging. Simply saying you disagree makes no point. And giving up on convincing us is perhaps a sign you are the one who is wrong.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)seemingly implied that men can only have a valid opinion concerning gender relations if they completely agree with feminists. I also disagree with the idea that men can't be feminists if they believe (and dare to say) that some feminists are just plain wrong. Just because I think that someone like Andrea Dworkin or Catherine Mackinnon is mostly wrong doesn't mean that I don't like women.
I have seen so many posts on here saying that looking at the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is wrong, that opening doors for women is sexist, that I have trouble taking some of these extreme viewpoints seriously.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but it depends on how you do it, I suppose. You don't get the point about women being sex objects or get the idea of benevolent sexism, so you've labeled it ridiculous. And you can expect disagreement from feminists, both men and women, though they need not call you MRA or a misogynist for it, unless your tone is condescending.
What is Andrea Dworkin wrong about?
No one expects anyone to agree with everything she said - she could be rather extreme.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Women can see men as sex objects too. It doesn't bother me. Humans are sexual beings, and I don't see that as wrong.
salib
(2,116 posts)Let's see. Your wife having "the hots" for someone is treating them as a sex object?
Maybe a little further: some blacks are racist. So, it is just a natural part of being a human being. Right?
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)My wife doesn't talk about what a great guy Vin Diesel seems to be. She talks about his physical attributes. Isn't that seeing him as a sex object? It doesn't bother me, and she's certainly not ashamed of it. She also doesn't get offended when I mention someone's physical attributes.
I don't see the problem. Frankly, I think it's healthy. 
treestar
(82,383 posts)Hollywood stars are selling what they are selling, but your wife has to power to make the man feel he's being used by her. And he is laughing all the way to the bank.
It must be really boring if all you can discuss about people is their physical attributes.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)This is exactly what the op is about and it is why much of the feminist message is tuned out.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)want to keep status quo. rpivilege. a reward in what is. it does not matter how the message is changed, or tone is adjusted or words used. the majority will fight change out of fear. that is what feminist battle....
Egnever
(21,506 posts)if you are condecending to a man in a feminist discussion then you are just making a change of tone, but if a man is condescending then he is a mansplaining mysogynist.
I think that is exactly what Mrs. Watson was trying to speak to.
Having said that this is not my fight it is yours, so I will leave you to it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)I might have gotten this wrong. On iPhone and hard to follow a thread.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Try again.
MattBaggins
(7,904 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)threaten watson to pornify her without consent.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125551263
i am not seeing a tit for tat here.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)In fact, I think a lot of people enjoy being viewed as sex objects. It works both ways, and like I said, it's healthy. Mutual, no-strings-attached sex (ever hear of one night stands?) hasn't led to the fall of civilization yet.
Notice I never said that's all there is to a relationship (although a good many start off that way).
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)At some level sex is about physical traits for all of us. The moment I perceive "wow that body sure appeals to my sexual appetites" is a moment where I am viewing the other person as just a body I would like to use. Of course there is so much more to an actual relationship than immediate sexual desire, but for me that is a prerequisite, and it always involves at least a moment of what can be called objectification.
But, there is a big leap from objectifying someone's body for a moment in one's own mind, which seems inevitable and natural to me, versus objectifying every woman all the time and refusing to ever relate to a woman as an equal.
The racism example does not hold up because race is not instinctual like sex. I can easily imagine a culture of people that don't care about skin color and treat all "races" equally, but I cannot imagine a culture that gets rid of the natural urge of "omg he/she is so hot."
Egnever
(21,506 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)a full human being. It's like the difference between consensual sex and rape.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)I believe that having the hots for someone involves at least one moment of objectification. I believe that that most people thus perceive strangers as sexual objects all the time.
Your point pertains to the next step, as it were. Many men are not capable of moving past that initial "she's so hot" moment in order to relate to a woman as a full human being. I fully accept that, and so you are right, there is a big difference between having the hots for someone in your own mind versus treating them as if their sexual appeal is their only personal trait that matters, ie treating them as less than equal. Which is why I said, in the post you were responding to, that
Well, in my daily life it seems a lot of people don't understand this, so I guess it is important for us to repeat it many times...
treestar
(82,383 posts)And no one should be seen as a object.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)How is that having a conversation?
There are gender issues that involve men. There are gender stereotypes and gender roles that are attached to men. Do such issues not have a place in a movement that claims to want gender equality?
So a man has no right to provide his own opinion on a gender issue matter? And you wonder why so few people today want to call themselves a "feminist?"
salib
(2,116 posts)You define Treestar's statement that "But men do need to listen rather than take over and start telling us what we want" to mean that Treestar is saying that men should "do every single thing a woman says"? If I were to imagine the thought process behind that translation, then I might assume that you really see having a place at the table as being the equivalent to then be able to tell everyone else (especially the women) what to do.
I mean, if Treestar's saying that you should listen is the same as telling you what to do in every way, then...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Not from the post you are responding to.
Quit worrying so much. As a man, you are in the privileged class. I agree you have something to lose in having to treat us equally, and if you don't want to lose that, admit to being against feminism.
salib
(2,116 posts)Exactly what I was thinking.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)White people are part of the culture that needs to change. Men are part of culture that needs to change.
Women are part of the culture that needs to change, too.
There is a wide gap between being aware of people's different perspectives and telling people that they are incapable of understanding a situation completely because of their cultural identity. That last one is simply another kind of bigotry and will get no one anywhere.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)anymore than men should lead a feminist conversation.
If the topic were race relations, would you also suggest that POCs are part of the culture that needs to change?
Response to treestar (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Oktober
(1,488 posts)A cursory glance shows that there are indeed "man-hating" feminists.
You can talk about what you'd like it to be and work towards that goal but it's not there yet.
treestar
(82,383 posts)but they sure are referred to often. And we are called man haters for advancing a feminist point of view.
Oktober
(1,488 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Oktober
(1,488 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)She was not saying Feminists are man-haters. She is saying that is the perception of Feminism and that is what has to stop.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You can take that both ways. She could be referring to how other people see the ones fighting for women's rights. Or talking about the people who are fighting for women's rights as being man haters. You're probably right.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)and later expands on Feminism having somehow become a dirty word. She was def saying that people need to stop calling feminists man-haters.
The speech was kinda all over the place but if you read or listen to it in its entirety the point she was trying to make becomes clearer in my opinion.
treestar
(82,383 posts)of what she is specifically trying to do, it is more likely she meant that. I hadn't picked up on that before, but the whole program sounds like it is trying to convince men that feminism is a benefit to them and that feminists don't hate men.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I agree with what justiceischeap said, and I was really impressed by Emma Watson's speech...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)regarding feminist topics as they are usually raised in DU. Feminism, both in other groups or in (preferably) live encounters, is not something I ignore or shy away from.
But I usually pass right over the subject here.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Fuck that noise.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Obviously I disagree with you, but I see no need in discussing it further. I don't think either of us has any chance of altering the other's point-of-view.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I'm glad Ms. Watson is more inclusive.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Autumn
(45,120 posts) Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I know it's not as simple as all that but a lot of the crap that Women have had to put up with could have been greatly lessened by people following that quaint saying.
As I get older, I have grown to almost despise the roles that have been stamped upon the sexes.
I often wonder what great discoveries/inventions have been lost because of "Roles"
(IE: That's not a Woman's role)
salib
(2,116 posts)But empathy definitely helps at consciousness raising.
Still, keep in mind that the golden rule is just a possible step. Just as with racism, just because I treat all others the way I would have them treat me does not alleviate the fundamental white privilege I enjoy or the systemic racism they endure. Same goes for sexism. It is so much more, so ingrained, so subtle and so in your face.
Again, it is not simple, and it requires profound understanding and action to overcome.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)...a large sense of how it feels...being a 34 year old white male.
I HAVE always had a strong sense of fairness regarding the people around me and was appalled at a young age (6 ??) when I learned how women were treated in the past.
The phrase "That doesn't seem fair" comes to mind.
I'm almost embarrassed by my lack of understanding the whole..ah..Scope of things...but I am trying.
I try to take my cue from strong women who seem to know a lot of what they're talking about.
I do understand the subtle thing. I'm pretty good at catching THAT crap. I find it very $%$$. 
salib
(2,116 posts)But it is worth it.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's not an apples to apples comparison between racism and sexism. It's simply not the same thing.
Men face sexism in different ways. Feminists frequently have the impression that men have an easy life whose social pressures are absolutely no comparison to what women face. But this is the "grass is always greener on the other side" effect. Im not going to get into the ranking the issues and who has it better or worse because such a debate is pointless since we all have different lives and difficulties (a rich woman obviously has an easy life compared to a poor man, etc..). But the point remains the patriarchy has men locked in gender stereotypes too. And according to studies, it is even more rigid than the stereotypes women face today. Feminism can't even recognize this.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But it is problematic that the term "Patriarchy" denies women's very significant role in the status quo. They do the bulk of the socialization of our children and yet the term "Patriarchy" tries to foist all the blame on the male gender.
Women are every bit as significant creators of culture as men and it is silly, ignorant and deceitful to pretend that they are not full participants in the culture we live and breathe. I would add that it is also insulting to women to imply that.
Stop calling it a Patriarchy and start calling it the "Status Quo-archy" or whatever you want. Perhaps then ground could be made instead of hay.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)again. this would be feminism 101.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In my opinion, you do not have a cursory understanding of what culture really means and how it is created if you believe that women are not active participants in it.
And if they are, why do you insist on using a term which demonizes one half of the population while absolving the other of any role in the creation of the culture they live in?
Simply saying "feminism 101" isn't really enough, you know.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)As for patriarchy, yes it has a definition. So does "syllogism". But that doesn't mean that either is the correct term here, does it?
I like status quo. It is fairer and describes the same thing. If it helps you to imagine that the status quo has a penis, so be it. But I think it is needlessly reductive.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It's not just something Mom did to you-it was what was done to her, and her Mom, and her Mom.....
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)But it isn't just MALE turtles all the way down. That is truly reductionistic thinking.
I cannot fathom why it would be necessary to attach a male name to culture, nor can I understand why you cannot seem to grasp how that absolves women of any responsibility at the same time it robs them of agency and any power.
Why on earth would it be necessary -to move forward to a more egalitarian world - that you attach a male prefix to the power structure. It seems....well it seems infantile to be honest.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Easy to ignore if it helps you out.
Talk about reductionistic!
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)2. a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy
Bolding mine-because that is what the reality is in our "egalitarian" world.
Also:
Because the power structure IS male, or at least, overwhelmingly male-dominated. Or did you miss the part where the vast majority of business leaders, religious leaders, political leaders, people in positions of power and authority are, and have been, men? Do you disagree with this?
Your view is like saying that we can't talk about ANY inequality in society because we want to move toward, as you say, a "more egalitarian world." We might as well stop linking to Krugman, Reich, Stiglitz, etc. on DU.
Feminists do have a goal in mind of how the world should be, but that doesn't mean they don't recognize how the world actually is.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)Actually, feminism recognizes a lot of contradictory points of view, because feminist scholars disagree on just about everything. Some feminists think porn is so awful it should be banned. Some think that young women choosing to make money by flashing their breasts on a webcam is a sign of major progress.
Many feminists recognize that gender roles trap men into angry, aggressive personalities that struggle to deal with the fact that we pretty much all need love and understanding.
Many feminists also recognize that many women play right in to these nasty old stereotypes, focusing only on their looks and expecting that whatever man they sleep with will handle all their problems and pay all their bills.
I do agree, however, that some very outspoken feminists on this board seem to believe that males are one big happy club, and that the lives of men are almost universally easier than the lives of women. They are not interested in learning or sharing, just in repeating the same diatribes over and over while telling any poster who appears to be male that he cannot possibly contribute to a discussion about feminism because that is a job for women. Those posters are a minority of feminists, but they seem to be the most prolific and so their numbers can seem greater than they actually are...
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And that is precisely why some of us put forth efforts to parse the man-hating we see here on DU, from time to time, out from Feminism. The two do NOT belong together. Unfortunately when some of us do that, we are targeted with vapid rehashed nonsense that attempts to remove us from the conversation instead of including us ("Thanks for telling us we're 'doing Feminism wrong'", etc,)
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Challenges to MRA bullshit? Yes. Call-outs of misogyny and sexism? Yes. Criticism of how society's gender norms are hurtful-in the long run-to both women and men? Absolutely. Attacks on the patriarchy? Of course.
I fail to see how any of this is "man-hating."
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)but, like anything, saying "never" is wrong.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Only someone who takes every damn thing personally would see that as "man-hating."
Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)Why do so-called feminist blame men? There are already so many more opportunities for women to shine. It's their lack of willingness to move rather than men stopping them from doing so. By all means, join the military, fight in wars, run for fo your country's leadership. We've seen female leaders like Thatcher--are they better off than men?
cali
(114,904 posts)Many more opportunities than who or what? Lack of willingness to move? what does that even mean.
blaming a system of patriarchy is not the same thing as blaming men. Most feminists don't blame men. Women do join the military. They do fight in wars and they do run for their country's leadership.
Your post is not only off base, it's downright hostile and nasty.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The point she was trying to make was that when some people hear the word "Feminist" they automatically attach the adjective "man-hater" to the word. She was saying this has to stop--she even gave a definition of what Feminism is and no where in that definition is the phrase "man-hater."
Just like some people are perceiving that Watson was saying Feminists are man-haters, you're perceiving "so-called Feminist" with hating men.
Her entire 13 minute speech was about how gender roles hurt both women and men and that if women and men worked together to destroy the stereotypes that come with gender roles, both sexes would be a lot happier.
As far as your comment about a woman's lack of willingness to "shine?" Well, that's some serious crap right there. Even if a woman does fight to make it to the top of her field, she still gets paid less than a man doing the same job--is that a lack of willingness to be payed fairly? It's a proven fact women are paid less than men in the same positions in most fields. How is that a woman's lack of willingness to shine? Is it a woman's lack of willingness to shine that she doesn't get promotions because she may get pregnant and need to take time off to give birth? And yes, Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of England but what does that have to do with women being better off than men? It's not about being better it's about being treated equal.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts) AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)Iggo
(47,564 posts)Do tell, what do you think they should be called?
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Typical MRA talking point.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Oy vey....
________________________________________
On Mon Sep 22, 2014, 01:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Why blame men?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5568803
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Right wing talking points, "their lack of willingness to move rather than men stopping them from doing so."
Replace "feminist" with "blacks" and "men" with "whites"...this sounds like the same BS from right wing talk radio. "Why do blacks blame whites? There are already so many more opportunities for blacks to shine. It's their lack of willingness to move rather than whites stopping them from doing so."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 22, 2014, 01:27 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: C'mon DU, shoot down the right-wing talking points, don't hide from them. Lest this site become a *total* echo chamber...
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Misogynist claptrap.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is one of the rare times I actually have to sit and think about what to do...in the end while it's a spectacularly wrong-headed, insensitive, and idiotic post, and maybe a troll, I don't think it's actually offensively misogynistic per se and would be better dealt with via engagement than censure.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Why is this person still here? S/he's not progressive by any measure.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What the alerter wrote should have been a response to the post, not an alert.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Number23
(24,544 posts)"replace feminist with black" is just about the stupidest thing I've seen in forever.
And that type of thing is done all the time here ("replace xx with black and you'll see how bigoted it is" . If something is really bigoted, are substitutions necessary? And why is "black" always the go to substitution??
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)equating Feminism with some women who may do Feminism poorly or go to extremes. Each women's experience with patriarchy is going to be different and some are going to be more defensive and reactive then others. Those women who lash out at men I sense have been victimized and hurt more. You're not going to change them by telling them they are wrong or by labeling their anti-social coping behavior as "Feminism" or as "The problem with Feminism."
I think people (men and women on both sides) are failing to see the difference between Feminism and someone's or their own personal coping strategy for the effects of Patriarchy. A coping strategy is not Feminism. Some women are going to need to cut themselves off from all men to recover depending on the severity of the patriarchy they have experienced. What drives them to even more extremes and occasionally anger, is telling them, no, you're wrong.
Men should recognize they are going to see a range of coping strategies from women and some of them are going to be extreme and off the mark just as the behaviors of men can be extreme and off the mark. But that doesn't mean those behaviors are "feminist" in nature. In fact, I think I could make a pretty good argument that when a "feminist" usually runs afoul of others, it's typically when they have been trying the behave more "masculine". So the masculine ethos or culture seems so corrupted that even if a woman adopts it as a way to advance Feminism, she runs into problems with others. Something to reflect on.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Great post!
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)I think it's important to separate a person's personal way of dealing that is specific to their experience and a wide doctrine. It's very likely a particular approach works for some women but doesn't for others. Can some women go to extremes when addressing a problem? Sure. But so can men. That's a human fault, not one specific to women. The idea is to find the right balance for a person that keeps them safe and their rights respected but doesn't limit their ability to have productive interaction with people, both men and women, that enhances their well being and quality of life.
Depending on what stage you are and the local social scene, for some women, men need to be part of the conversation. For others, the ignorance on the part of the local culture is too much to deal with all at once. Yes, Feminism should, ultimately include men. But I just get a sense Emma Watson is equating personal coping strategies and therapeutic techniques that may exclude men, as the "fault" of or part of the doctrine of "Feminism." I think a lot of people make this mistake, including some proponents of Feminism.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)that even if a woman adopts it as a way to advance Feminism, she runs into problems with others."
I figured since you enjoyed diagnosing "womens' problems" you wouldn't mind if one returned the favor.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)is your quote, not mine. I never used those words in that arrangement.
I was discussing a subtle difference between a Feminist doctrine and coping strategies that human's, both men and women, employ... not attributing "problems" exclusively to women.
Why you come at me with both guns blasting, I have no idea.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)it was eloquent and said from a desire for peace and understanding in my opinion and I applaud you for it.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)Sometimes I get the feeling there are some members here that engage in hit-and-run replies and deliberately take things out of context and that's why they never follow up when I answer them.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Yeah, not addressing what you perceived to be women w/ emotional issues, and women doing feminism wrong....
Shit like this is why no feminist will allow you to dominate the conversation. Also, why you make them laugh and shake their heads.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)because it seems to me like you are taking great liberties with what I typed. I went out of my way to make clear it wasn't a gender specific or wide application. And yet you went ahead and took the liberty of applying it in a way far removed from my original post. I made perfectly clear a coping strategy could run the spectrum between emotional to completely rational and that men should not be so quick to assume the former since it is based upon an individual's personal experience.
Are you maintaining all women are going to be flawless in their application of Feminism? I suggested that as a possibility for the same reason not all men are flawless in their application of masculinity. So I figured I would get no disagreement in applying that same principle to women, since like men, women too are human.
Do you agree that some men think they are being masculine when they are just being abusive? In your mind can there never be a counterpart among women? Do all women inherently "do Feminism" correctly to you? Is every interpretation of Feminism out there, no matter what it calls for, legitimate to you. I think certain allowances should be made for personal needs but not every women's personal requirement, however valid it may be in her case, should be broadly applied.
What I'm driving at is I can't even find a logical reason for your objection to my post. Given what I typed was basically a simple defense of the label Feminism and for it to not be abused by the Men's Rights Movement, how you responded seems very suspect to me.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)if you don't feel like it (of course) but I want you to know I feel you unfairly characterized my posts and you didn't make a good case against me.
Acknowledging that some women have less than productive interpretations of Feminism and suggesting why that could be or that some men are using some women as a way to discredit Feminism is not attacking women or the gender. "man" and "woman" are just terms for "human." I'm talking about humans. All humans make mistakes.
It may be problematic for you on a personal level based on your experience but not every attempt to explain the mechanisms behind, what I might add, are gender neutral interactions, is hiding a misogynist attempting to dominate women by man'splaning.
I find the refusal to acknowledge faults the same reason progress can't be made in redefining masculinity. It's the same crap patriarchal culture employs against women. "Men are flawless. Don't second guess our behavior. Representing any men in a bad light is an attack on men."
That's not the pattern of someone interested in advancing the human condition but of advancing a gender war.
You may indeed someday encounter a man who has a more accurate interpretation of the dynamics of the gender wars than a women (just as I have happily embraced a great many feminists as heroines, role-models and experts.) Whether you can accept that or not will be indicative of whether you are truly interested in advancing the human condition.
I wish you well.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)to dismiss or shut down conversation.
i have literally had men repeatedly tell me i am emotionally damaged. no one knows me. they are wrong. i have been very lucky in life to be in the presence of good, loving, nurturing men. their diagnosis of "emotionally damaged" was only used as a tool, a weapon, to shut me down. i think that is what some of us are hearing in your post.
step further. even women that are actually, or admittedly emotionally damage has no less the right to their voice and experience.
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)And you make no small point. I've seen men do this. To women. To myself, as a "beta" male on principle. (Call me a fool, I have no interest in power over others.) Just shut up, you don't know what you're talking about. You're bitter, frustrated, warped, etc.
I guess my fault is that trying to use a disagreement over the finer details of something to lower the power status of women is so far removed a thought or behavior of my personality, it doesn't even register that others might be seeing it as a motive in me.
I'm a fairly self-deprecating guy as it is and not one to attempt to shore up my self-confidence by trying to "lecture" to someone without serious reflection and consideration of both of our responses. In other words, it's not a lecture to me or disagreement for the sake of disagreement. It's a discussion where both parties present what they have and contrast their "notes" to try to find some mutual agreement and understanding.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)than reflection.
in their replies to you. i think that is another give away.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Personally, as a man, I don't feel it's my place to determine what is and isn't feminism. Just because I disagree with a certain idea - or even consider it spectacularly wrongheaded - doesn't mean I'm going to declare it "not feminism."
Shankapotomus
(4,840 posts)were the kinds that were doing the name of "Feminism" harm. The ones the Men's Rights Movement likes to use to discredit Feminism.
The ones where they say "Germaine Greer (spelling?) once said women should stop interacting with men at all" or "All men should be castrated...etc." Or whatever extreme quotes they like to take to discredit all of Feminism by saying "That is Feminism.".
I'm not sure why the Feminists at DU, and specifically responding to me, would want to leave that kind of stuff on the table as legitimately representative of Feminism. Not sure how that helps Feminism or women, either.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)as a whole, at all? Seems to me the equating of "feminist" with "man-hater" is mostly the fault of misogynists, not feminists. Because the genuine man-haters are a tiny, largely irrelevant segment of the feminist movement.
"I'm not sure why the Feminists at DU, and specifically responding to me, would want to leave that kind of stuff on the table as legitimately representative of Feminism."
Where, specifically, have they endorsed such extreme ideas? Just because they don't go out of their way to condemn, say, Valerie Solanas, doesn't mean they agree with her. They may simply consider her, in 2014, irrelevant and not worthy of comment.
And furthermore, it's not as if acting or speaking "just the right way" will change the minds of those opposed to equality. You're never going to satisfy the MRA types - they hate women, full stop.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 22, 2014, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)
The point of feminism is to enable more female participation.
kcr
(15,318 posts)And that will never work. Stop telling men they aren't allowed to have opinions. That hurts their feelings and we'll never get anywhere that way. Best just to go back to the status quo. That is clearly the path to change as always. Don't be an example of the other man-haters that make DU suck. Join friendly, all inclusive feminists of change so things can be just as they were before. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)these men defining in the most unflattering of ways. yet.... what? lol. i am not allowed to say no... or what? this is becoming hte funniest fuckin thread. and i have to get busy with my day. a thread full of men, telling us, about ourselves. and i am being told. i am suppose to really take this seriously, especially by one man that likes to use every vulgar term about women, as often as possible, all the while telling me, there is no such thing as "sexist slurs" or the least, both genders equally slur.
twilight zone here.
oh. and you should hear what a few say about women on our crazy uncle site.
they are syaing it out loud on this thread. we listened already, guys....
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)You just don't like having things explained to you properly. You should be happy they still call you sexist slurs. I mean we all know you really want it and like it.
We have seen who thinks like this and we have seen how they actually treat women on the internet. The projection is STEEEE-RONG in this thread. I can only imagine that it's somehow sadistically satisfying to them. Pathetic.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Which would bruise a lot of fragile egos, but in the long run, will be better for EVERYONE, if there is equality, inclusion, and parity.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)we never even get to this point. so obvious. too true.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 22, 2014, 09:42 PM - Edit history (1)
As a man who supposedly holds all the cards what would the motivation to have the conversation in the first place? The idea that men started this conversation and dominate it seems completely contradictory to the basic tenants of the conversation.
I can see only two basic reasons for men to be involved at all. One would be to disagree the other to agree. Domination implies to me a control of the conversation and I don't see where this particular subject lends itself to that in any way.
If you want to call disagreement domination then I suppose you make a point but I would find that a stretch.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)That the result doesn't look much like feminism is, again, the point of feminism.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)And too many time I see these conversation about 'Women Issues' held by Republicans and the one thing that is notably not speaking at these event are women.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)she has put in a whole fuggin 6 months.... let her put in a handful of years.... really listening. and then get back to me.
in all her brilliance of a mere 6 months lecturing, she projects manhating. she really clueless just where this is coming from. well. it is simple. and we talk about it continually. cause we continually watch people paint feminists as man haters. i have been called a man hater numerous times on du. and it stands. take a look at this thread alone.
if in her 6 months, she is not having a different conversation about "feminists" and man hater, she has not gone far in her study. listening. researching. learning....
her simple act, right there, reinforced the limbaughs, mra, pua, neoliberal, and so many more men, that prefer to keep there privilege.
right there, she reinforced the men on du to state i and others are manhaters.
a life time of me taking care of boys, and men. yet others get to define me and all the other women on du that speak out against the sexism, as man haters.
i do not know who this woman is. i do not know life experience. i do not know the effort she puts into the world of patriarchy, gender roles, feminism. i do know, her reinforcing the man hating was wrong. and this would be an example of how well i listen.
we see it in this thread. feminism 101 in our face.
Response to seabeyond (Reply #74)
Blue_Adept This message was self-deleted by its author.
Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)The links were posted in the OP, but I'm not understanding why you'd be so dismissive of Emma Watson if you'd read or watched it. She's not saying feminists are man-haters. She's saying there's a perception out there that feminists are man-haters, and that perception needs to stop.
Please read her speech, because I don't see what you'd object to in it. I'll post the entire speech, as it was buried at the bottom of one of the linked pages in the OP...
The more I spoke about feminism, the more I realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain is that this has to stop. For the record, feminism by definition is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. It is the theory of political, economic and social equality of the sexes.
When I was 8, I was called bossy because I wanted to direct a play we would put on for our parents. When at 14, I started to be sexualized by certain elements of the media. At 15, my girlfriends started dropping out of sports teams because they didn’t want to appear masculine. At 18, my male friends were unable to express their feelings.
I decided that I was a feminist. This seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word. Women are choosing not to identify as feminists. Apparently, [women’s expression is] seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, and anti-men, unattractive even.
Why has the word become such an uncomfortable one? I think it is right I am paid the same as my male counterparts. I think it is right that I should be able to make decisions about my own body. I think it is right that women be involved on my behalf in the policies and decisions that will affect my life. I think it is right that socially, I am afforded the same respect as men.
But sadly, I can say that there is no one country in the world where all women can expect to see these rights. No country in the world can yet say that they achieved gender equality. These rights are considered to be human rights but I am one of the lucky ones.
My life is a sheer privilege because my parents didn’t love me less because I was born a daughter. My school did not limit me because I was a girl. My mentors didn't assume that I would go less far because I might give birth to a child one day. These influences are the gender equality ambassadors that made me who I am today. They may not know it but they are the inadvertent feminists needed in the world today. We need more of those.
If you still hate the word, it is not the word that is important. It is the idea and the ambition behind it because not all women have received the same rights I have. In fact, statistically, very few have.
In 1997, Hillary Clinton made a famous speech in Beijing about women’s rights. Sadly, many of the things that she wanted to change are still true today. What struck me the most was that less than 30% of the audience were male. How can we effect change in the world when only half of it is invited or being welcomed to participate in the conversation?
Men, I would like to give this opportunity to extend your formal invitation. Gender equality is your issue, too. Because to date, I’ve seen my father’s role as a parent being valued less by society. I’ve seen young men suffering from mental illness, unable to ask for help for fear it would make them less of a man. In fact, in the UK, suicide is the biggest killer of men between 20 to 49, eclipsing road accidents, cancer and heart disease. I’ve seen men fragile and insecure by what constitutes male success. Men don’t have the benefits of equality, either.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are. When they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence. If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we all see gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals. We should stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by who we are. We can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. I want men to take up this mantle so that their daughters, sisters and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too, reclaim parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so, be a more true and complete version of themselves.
You might think: who is this Harry Potter girl? What is she doing at the UN? I’ve been asking myself the same thing. All I know is that I care about this problem and I want to make it better. And having seen what I’ve seen and given the chance, I feel it is my responsibility to say something. Statesman Edmund Burke said all that is need for the forces of evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
In my nervousness for this speech and in my moments of doubt, I told myself firmly: if not me, who? If not now, when? If you cast doubts when opportunity is presented to you, I hope those words will be helpful. Because the reality is if we do nothing, it will take 75 years or maybe 100 before women can expect to be paid the same as men for the same work. 15.5 million girls will be married in the next 16 years as children. And at current rates, it won't be until 2086 before all rural African girls can have a secondary education.
If you believe in equality, you might be one of the inadvertent feminists I spoke of earlier and for this I appraud you. We must strive for a united world but the good news is we have a platform. It is called HeForShe. I invite you to step forward, to be seen and I ask yourself: if not me, who? If not now, when? Thank you.
http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/us-canada/69726-emma-watson-gender-equality
seaglass
(8,173 posts)No, men who do not listen do not get to be heard. Not all men are invited.
"Men should be involved" does not mean men should be in charge, and decide what the goals and definitions of the movement are.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)else a turn.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)How we choose to conduct ourselves going forward is the real issue.
Will it be conduct to be proud of, conduct that will make a better future or will it represent the worst of our nature? That choice is open to everyone, invitation or not.
Also, whether one is heard or not heard depends largely on their volume as well as their tone and not just the content of their speech.
I leave it to you to figure out which is more likely to be heard, but I think Emma Watson is an exemplary model for how to affect change.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Let me understand. I have an obligation to participate in a conversation of your choosing and at your direction?
I think reconsidering what is meant by "participate" and "equality" might be useful.
For that matter, dominance might be a good one to add to the reading list.
Are we still allowed to point out when something is patently false or outright insane? Because so far thats not the impression I've been getting.
Instead all I'm seeing are the feminist versions of William Tapley...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Over the weekend, Harry Potter actress Emma Watson delivered an impassioned speech aimed at ending gender inequality — to which online hacking group 4chan responded by creating a site called “Emma You Are Next,” which alleges to count down the time until a 4chan user will release nude photographs of her.
Shortly after her graduation from Brown University, Watson was named UN Women Goodwill Ambassador. Her speech on Saturday marked the first time she spoke to the assembly as a whole, and she did so on behalf of the HeForShe campaign.
HeForShe is an effort, in her words, to “try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.”
...
Such elements have made Watson a target of intense interest, of which the 4chan site “Emma You Are Next” is merely the latest instance. The site includes a countdown clock set to four days from Monday, September 22; an image of Watson wiping away tears; and the message, “Never forget, the biggest to come thus far.”
...
These idiots need to be hunted down and prosecuted for their crimes.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/4chan-responds-emma-watsons-feminist-speech-at-un-with-photo-countdown-clock/
treestar
(82,383 posts)I guess they are trying to be unpleasant.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)personal private property being accessed. only women. here is an interesting perspective on this. it is a weapon/tool used by these men. humiliate and degrade.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=50750
*
These codes provide cover for a pastime as old as patriarchy: punishing women who step out of line. The nude photos of female celebrities, including the actress Jennifer Lawrence, were presumably hacked for the lulz – as well as for bitcoins, which a 4channer initially requested in exchange for them. Now it seems that half of Reddit’s users have decided it is their chivalrous duty to find the identity of the 4chan user who hacked the pictures. The other half are busy uploading the photos to the internet every time an image-hosting service removes them. Somewhere out there, I hope, a psychology student is gathering material for an excellent thesis. In the meantime, something strikes me about both the celebrity photo hack and the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and Z. This is a form of terrorism. (Sarkeesian agrees: “There is just no other word for it,” she tweeted on 31 August.)
What we are witnessing are deliberately outrageous acts designed to create a spectacle and to instil fear in a target population. Where Osama Bin Laden watched in approval as every news network endlessly replayed the footage of a plane hitting a tower, the hackers and harassers must feel thrilled by all the carefully search-engine-optimised headlines above articles decrying the latest leaked pictures. It is a function of successful terrorism that the media becomes unavoidably complicit in spreading the terror. There is no way to report the story without increasing its potency. We cannot stop looking.
As for the target population, tell me that young women aren’t supposed to look at the harassment of Sarkeesian for being a public figure and get the message: “This could happen to you, you uppity bitch. Watch your mouth.” The leaking of the celebrity nude photos has the same impetus as revenge porn. As the internet heaves under the weight of freely exposed nipples, violation has become a form of titillation. (If you must see an actress’s breasts, may I recommend watching pretty much any 18-rated movie made this year?) Any expression of women’s sexuality moves them into Camp Slut, where they are fair game for punishment and humiliation.
*more
alp227
(32,047 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)and as a society as a whole. to continually simply humiliate and degrade. over and over and over and over.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)You are, ummm, confusing a very, very, VERY small group of people with "society as a whole".
I can see why that might lead to some rather extreme conclusions, but it's a little bit like stumbling on a group of pee fetishists and then concluding that everyone in the world likes to have people pee in their mouth.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)of sweeping voice as a whole by individuals. man and woman. and over hundred in recommends.
there is a purpose in being so manipulative toward womens voice.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Who is trying to manipulate what now? And what issue are you talking about wrt the "sweeping voice" and "hundred recommends"?
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)That's the goal.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)is taking over the conversation, which is why they've so joyfully misunderstood Emma Watson's comments. They figure she's given them permission to take over the conversation.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)exactly. and how did they decide to redirect the conversation? by bashing/dissing women on du.
and then they insist they should have the right to be the voice, and we women she silently allow.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I poked around 4chan when they were in the news earlier. First, 4chan isn't a 'hacking group'. It's a website, mostly full of teenage guys (or guys who act like teens), where posters spend most of their time being self-absorbed, posting anything they think will 'shock' normal people. Porn, pictures of dead people or violence to people or animals, drug-related posts, bathroom humour, homophobic, sexist and racist slurs, suicide threats, etc, etc, etc. And making threats of various sorts that mostly will never come to anything.
So they're not 'online hacking group 4chan'. Second, anyone planning to post pics of Watson no doubt already planned to post such pics before her she ever spoke out - while '4chan' was associated with the big celeb pic leak, there is no '4chan' core group - anyone who posts there is part of '4chan' in the same way that anyone who posts at DU is part of DU. Actually even less part of it, since the vast majority of posters are essentially anonymous, and only a few appear to cough up money to 'become members'.
I strongly suspect that if anything is 'released' at the end of the countdown, it will be one or more photoshopped fakes. But the people who post on 4chan wouldn't bother with a countdown clock, they'd just demand of whoever has the pics that they be posted immediately and call the guy a fraud if he didn't 'deliver'. So it's probably one guy who got a bug in his rear about Watson's speech, who may or may not have any real compromising pics of her, but probably doesn't.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)4chan is just a big webforum, and you've pretty much nailed the character of the posters there. But there is a pretty large hacker contingent that posts and coordinates there. Anonymous, especially early on grew out of the 4chan hacker clique. So it's a big simplification to call it a hacking group, but it isn't entirely inaccurate either.
But I agree that whomever is making threats in this case is just blowing smoke.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)notice any of the hacker posts. And I certainly didn't realize Anonymous originated with that site. I really wouldn't have thought it would be their speed, I've always thought of them as being a bit classier than that.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Too many "moderate" men IMO are not brave enough to stand up to the misogynistic "manly men", often the alpha males, and are afraid of losing their "man card" if they don't support the patriarchy, and IMO often leads to the equivalent of a code of silence. Respectable male figures, including celebrities, already have the respect and status to be able to challenge the status quo without losing much, plus their influence would be able to make men feel more freedom also to challenge it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)that hump, a lot of really awesome mens voice would be merging, .... in song. it is not too far for them. not a huge leap. they get it. merely a step forward. and it truly is painless. as a man, in a post above stated.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
libodem
(19,288 posts)Interesting to take note of the recommends. Certain names are notably absent. Hmmmm?
Response to libodem (Reply #131)
Luminous Animal This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to libodem (Reply #131)
seaglass This message was self-deleted by its author.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Is feminism about equality or is it about advocacy for women's interests?
If the former, then count me in. I can think of lots of good conversations on the topic of equality we could have and suggestions for achieving it. In fact if this is the case, I'm already part of the conversation.
Unfortunately, what feminism is actually doing can only be reconciled with the latter world view. What equality objective is being served by a men only draft registration? What equality goal is served by the office of women's health? The White House office of women and girls? VAWA? WIC? The list of free health care services that the ACA guarantees women but not men?
"Equality" is a head-fake. It's marketing. It's "dolphin safe tuna". Feminism is about embracing the privileging parts of the patriarchy.
I've concluded that feminism (as practiced by the people Ms Watson is talking to) is like the war on terror. It isn't meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's not the right wing or Rush Limbaugh for why feminism is now a bad word. It's the hypocrisy that is in feminism today. Also you have radical feminists like McKinnon and Dworkin that made it very negative and very uninviting....not just men but women too. Less than 20% of women call themselves a "feminist" today. There is a reason for that. That movement lost its way a long time ago.
I mean you see the hypocrisy right here... when a male athlete commits domestic violence, feminists call for suspensions and bans (even before any due process is given). But when a female athlete commits domestic violence, these same people make excuse and try to mitigate it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i would suggest it is seeing more popularity from our young women that probably in any time of its history. i understand you have an agenda to tarnish and diminish the goals of feminists, but you are not sitting on the facts.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The first wave feminists simply wanted equality with men, to be able to vote, to have the same opportunities as men, and to have all laws apply to each gender equally.
Today, that is not what feminists are really advocating for. The fact feminists wanted special privileges in ACA and have it written specifically to exclude men says an awful lot about the goals of that movement. You really think Susan B Anthony would support the government funding preventative care for only women but not men? Give me a break.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)It IS the right wing that made "feminism" into a bad word. The movement hasn't lost its way but it is losing the battle against the conservative noise machine. When there are DUers who assert over and over again that feminism isn't about equality, or who use "Dworikin" like some four letter word or trump card, the conservative noise machine is even winning here.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)It's been posted on this thread already...just look.
Or how about this double standard... where is the National Organization for Women on this issue?
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/11572376/us-soccer-stands-decision-let-hope-solo-play-pending-assault-charge
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)and the only thing I see is the same tired noise from a subset of posters who seem to think that feminists are either idiots or secretly plotting world domination.
As for Solo, her case didn't receive the national attention, but that's hardly the fault of NOW or other feminists. I don't see NOW supporting her or trying to excuse her behavior. Solo was charged after all.
ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)Or a Native American or a Muslim feminist.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)You really believe that, internalized it as truth.
Ok. Not much to discuss then.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Sep 22, 2014, 07:16 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't violate TOS. The post was alerted because the alerter disagrees with the post.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People can express opinions as long as they do not violate the rules. This does not violate any policy, other than stating a position the objector wants to hide from the discussion.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I would have let the post stand except for the final sentence which at that point the post became condescending. Close, but I have to vote to hide the post. TxT
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I guess this is proof positive that either
a) some DU'ers disagree with Ms Watson and believe that feminism can achieve its goals without listening to men or,
b) they don't want to succeed,
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)you created a bogus argument.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)and the three people who voted to hide it, of course.
They are saying exactly that, explicitly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)I think he think Ukranians are people of color as well.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)but it is obvious groups like 4chan and MRA types are 'woman-haters'. The death threats being a glaring example.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Humanity can not exist in a vacuum.
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)Are doing everything they can to ensure that no male will ever take any feminist seriously.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)I've already put down your willful ignorance.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)because you already lost an argument to me today and stared making accusations that I was demanding rape porn int thread here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5569917
See the above? Thats called backing up your claims with proof, something you've been unable to do thus far.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)My bad. Won't happen again.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)seriously? I would imagine it's comments like this that agitate not only feminists but rational thinking people.
Nobody likes a blanket statement.
That'd be akin to me saying, based on your comment, all guys from Wisconsin are women hating a**holes. That would, of course, include you by using such a blanket statement but that may not necessarily be the case, would it? And since you haven't been on DU that long, you've not met many of DUs feminists so not only is your statement kinda rude but short-sighted as well.
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)conversation? Or will you be as impossible to talk to as seabeyond, JTFrog http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5565728 With random accusations of saying I'm demanding rape porn when all I'm asking is for examples of their supposed "rape culture" in a comedy tv series on broadcast tv.
daredtowork http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5563516 Who make comments totally and completely unrelated to the topic at hand, just to try and score points against a group that would be considered low hanging fruit
or SunSeeker http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017213190 who, with their impenetrable lack of logic can't see the false equivalence of their arguments that go so far as to equate the Spiderwoman comic with Sambo, then when they realize they have lost the argument decide to claim that they are being violated and cyber stalked.
Those are the ones I've met so far and my impression with them is that they'll make the rest of you look like you could possibly all be out of your tree if I follow their line of reasoning that all of you should be held responsible for the actions of the individuals.
So, do you want to have a civil discussion, or will you act just like them?
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)Not only have you insulted several people in your reply but you're inviting me to insult them by responding in the affirmative to your question.
I have a question of my own for you though... from reading your back and forths it seems you don't want to have conversations. You want to make pithy remarks that are mostly insulting and it also appears as though if people don't agree with your line of thinking, then they're illogical or claiming false equivalencies or, or, or... It takes two people to have a conversation and both people have to be willing to think about the others' position anything less isn't a conversation. So, are YOU willing to have the conversation?
For example, in the first thread you link to, the first comment of yours I came across your reply pretty much shuts down any chance of a conversation when you start it by telling them they don't have a leg to stand on. You should have just posted, "Nope, you're wrong according to me. Nuff said!" and left it at that instead of complaining about it here.
Your second link attacks daredtowork for stating a comment, that again, doesn't agree with your line of thinking and as stated above, pretty much insults the commenter from the outset and doesn't really open any avenues for discussion (which it appears you want battle, not discussion).
Finally, your comment on SunSeekers comparison isn't quite true. SunSeeker was drawing a comparison via the previous commenters comment. It's not the same as equating Spiderwoman with Sambo. I'll quote SunSeeker exactly:
No, it was Milo Manara who turned Spiderwoman into porn meat.
I didn't "sexualize" her into anything.
Geez. It's like claiming an African American who objects to Sambo cartoons is "racializing" Sambo.
If you can't see that SunSeeker wasn't equating Spiderwoman and Sambo, then you have reading comprehension issues.
Point being, from reading all the comments you've made so far, you don't really want to have a discussion on feminist issues because you seem to quite despise feminists. I also suspect that had someone posted a video as proof, you would have denied the content of the video.
PS... your claim that women only play games on phones? Complete and total hogwash. I'm a console gamer (oh, the horror) and have quite the extensive investment in games that I play on a regular basis. I'm currently bored to death with Destiny...it's a snoozer in my opinion, recently revisited Borderlands in anticipation of Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel and spent about four months on Borderlands 2. I don't know how many hours I spent on Skyrim...I lost count. I'm pretty sure the only game I have on my phone are the games that came with my phone and I've no clue what they are.
Also, your claim that videos game were always violent? You seem to lack the historical perspective in this. The first gaming system I had was an Atari 2600 and the first game was Pong... no violence at all--no women or men either. The second game I had? Asteroids... I guess you could say it was kinda violent, you were blowing up "rocks" with missiles. Most of the first video games didn't have people in them, let alone violence, so no, video games were not always violent and they weren't always laden with women as sexual window dressing and if you even deny women appear in games as sexual window dressing, then it'll show just how blind you are to the issue as a man.
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)order.
daredtowork tries to equate some dumb high cool kids wearing shirts that spelled out "rape?" to gamer culture, something that was completely unrelated to the topic at, hand. When I pointed out that kids are generally jerks, I got no retort, the same goes for when I pointed out that you don't see rape anywhere when you choose not to play games with children, because even men quickly tire of being called a faggot by a 12 year old for the thousandth time in the last 10 minute round.
Instead daredtowork refused to post proof of rape in games by posting screenshots of the chat logs with redacted screen names, something that is free and easy to do. But was most defiantly ready to claim violation for having the audacity to ask for proof.
Are you going to argue against the industries own numbers? http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/esa_ef_2013.pdf
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/female-adults-oust-teenage-boys-largest-gaming-demographic/
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/220115/women-dominate-mobile-gaming-space.html?edition=
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/09/30/women-mobile-video-games/1600465/
I've been friend and clanmate with several "outed" female gamers, and like I said, I've also seen as many males playing as female sexting the dumb male players to gt easy game currency and equipment. Because as they say, unless you come right out and out yourself
Yes, SunSeeker equated it to Sambo in this post http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017213190#post240 and hen continued to claim that their argument held water without quantifying it.
Nope, Pong wasn't first by a long shot, Nim was the first real videogame system, it played Reversi/Go. But that wasn't my point, my point was o story telling in games, and storyteling is primarily sex and violence unless it's the modern take on children's stories. Because if you read the old non Disneyfied fairytales that where intended for children they where chock full of sex and violence. The reason I made this point was specifically to target people like yourself that would assume that games haven't moved much from the Pong consoles of the 70's. Lets totally ignore an entire genre like the old text based MUDs that where entirely story driven or terribly racist and sexist games containing actual rape like the Atari title Custer's Revenge and the rest of the disgusting titles listed here:
The only thing I despise is the inability of people to have a rational discussion. I'm here to play fair, not nice.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)Going to back up your arguments?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)You claimed that the proof of rape is from comedy TV shows on OTA broadcast channels, I asked for examples of this and you instead choose to act persecuted. So what does that leave for me to make of you?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)the jokes, in comedies, (thinking when i met your mother, a good show) barney so often presenting rape, for a laugh. we condition well.
It's not my job in the discussion to prove you point for you.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)No one really thought you were interested in having the discussion. I just wanted everyone else to see that you are only interested in trashing feminists on DU.
Good luck with that. 
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)But don't let that stop you from claiming victory for failing to be able to defend your claims for all this time.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)It was already at your fingertips, you just wanted to pretend otherwise and get a little feminist bashing in there. Well good for you.
DavidG_WI
(245 posts)
RandySF
(59,167 posts)
Scout
(8,624 posts)DavidG_WI
(245 posts)Not even in this topic, just scroll up.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)The less out of their pieholes, the better.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I'm a man.
In fact, the person who brought me into feminism is a man.
The problem isn't with feminism. Fine, there are some batshit crazy feminists out there, and plenty other ideologies associated that I don't agree with, but the idea that feminism is about man-hating is a stupid strawman.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but that ship has sailed long ago.
[img]
[/img]
Women are the majority now and increasingly so as each year passes by and more and more men die. Looking ahead, women must do the heavy lifting now, not men, to shape the world as they see fit. Begging for men to come back to their traditional patriarchal roles isn't going to happen.
