Kevin Myers is not happy with militant feminists

Buceph wrote: »

I think militant feminism is a bad word, as the people it's used to describe generally just write angry blogs where any opinion contrary to their own is seen as a sign of the "patriarchy."


I think the real litmus test for where the whackos start is when you deal with rape and sexual assualt (although domestic violence could be equally used.) People who believe all sex is rape, only women are the victims are the sexual assualt, and that the founding principles of the rule of law should be abandoned.

I agree. Unfortunately, there are nut jobs under any ideology. It irks me when, for feminism, it's held up as a way to disregard all feminist thought.

brianthebard wrote: »

Who are these people, have you got any names?

In fairness to Buceph, I've met a couple of women like this. It's more a case of an idiot looking for anything to hitch their mental wagon to, rather an inherent fault in the ideology.

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not really a proper answer but point proven nonetheless.

It's not a proper answer? It was a stupidly aggresive question. I know you're active in feminist circles, at the very least just on boards, so I know you've come across the people I talk about. It's this attitude that pervades the whacko-feminist groups (note I won't use militant feminist, because they have a historical importance it would be wrong to deny.) Any opinion that doesn't fall 100% in line with the prevailing attitude in certain feminist groups is seen as pure evil. There's no ground ceded that people could have equally pro-equality stances, while not holding the same exact opinion. And the presumption that any criticism, even if specifically directed at the extreme's of feminism is an ignorant position. It's a denial of what is doing most damage to feminism. That's why I told you to google for the Penny Arcade situation, because that will actually show anyone interested the extremism that you already know exists. Me listing off the names of people you don't know, from conversations you weren't a party to would have been pointless. But that's the very thing you were fishing for, because you could just dismiss that as me being the typical anti-feminist bigot.

Now I do understand why you said that, this is After Hours, and I wouldn't be surprised to find an ill-educated, reactionary diatribe posted. But to dismiss everyone who has an opinion that contains some criticism of the very wide situation that is feminism is to belittle the thing you claim to stand for. It's George Bush's "You're either with us or against us." And that's not fair to the cause you stand for, and it's not fair to anyone who might have an interest in that cause.

Millicent wrote: »

I have to say, I haven't actually read The Female Eunuch, so I can't comment on whether it made wicked generalisations or not. As with any movement though, there are mouthpieces who make the rest look bad. This is the same for any ideology or cultural movement, so it's not fair to judge all feminists under that banner. The majority of feminists I know personally are rational, even measured, considered and very intelligent. Those ones who would make generalisations are shot down -- I've seen it time and time again. Proper feminists are concerned with fairness, not demonisation, and would not stand for it in others. I know I wouldn't either.

First off I didn't intend for any of that to be pointed toward you as an individual. I'm talking about publicly visible groups. You say it is a few mouthpieces but these mouthpieces don't get condemned by other feminists.

And tbh, I'm not comfortable commenting on these cases he refers to. He hasn't cited any one particularly, so without knowing details -- how long was her leave, what hours did she put in, how competent was she above others -- it's impossible to comment. It's a straw man argument and, even for Myers, it's lazy.

The banker thing was a big deal during the boom years in the UK. There were cases where women sued. Sometimes they were right as they had been treated awfully purely due to their gender but other cases were just taking the piss.

As to the father's rights thing, you can check my posts in other threads to see that I wholeheartedly disagree with your mother. As someone with divorced parents, and as a feminist, I cannot reconcile this idea that one parent is somehow inherently "better" because of their gender. This, as I have argued before, is a consequence of the same patriarchal reasoning that Myers is using here.

I'm not going to check your posts as I wasn't making any accusastion that you were of this opinion. I was outlining why I think this opinion is widely accepted

In his example, women are serious students or potential mothers -- not either or. This viewpoint does little to respect the role of a parent, and indeed reinforces the concept that mother=home, father= ? The place of the man in the home should be respected and catered for. First step to that is changing the wording of the constitution, but that's a whole other argument for another day!

Listen I didn't mean anything in that post to be directed at you. I'm talking about visible public groups.

If feminists really wanted equality in the workplace they would fight for equal paternity leave for men as this would have the result that there would be no advantage to employers hiring/promoting men over women.

But no they rarely support that. Why? My opinion is they feel that women should have the right to be the primary carer of their child as well as get a high flying career.

The reality is no-one, male or female, is entitled to that. You're either one or the other - your choice.

brianthebard wrote: »

How was it stupidly aggressive? It was a simple question that deserved to be asked based on the way this thread has gone. Myers started by quoting unknown feminists and since then everyone has complained about certain feminists, but nobody says who they are.

It was aggresive because it was asking me to prove that I've come across extreme feminism. You could have said that these extreme views aren't that of the typical feminist, or the figureheads of feminism without demanding me to prove that I have come across ignorant people. Which was all I was saying, that there should be a rationale for dismissing people who have ignorant views. Then you dismiss one of the biggest examples of extremist feminists taking to the internet as me obfuscating? Please. You've been extremely aggresive with me.

Its good that you see the historical importance of militant feminism because I think a good few on this thread have missed that point.

Thanks for your approval.

But the point is who is doing this? It may be someone down the road or a friend or something, but there is a serious difference between people who have driven feminist ideology, like Greer (since she's the immediate example) and someone in say a class with me who has a chip on their shoulder and a hideously deformed opinion of feminism. The two are not on an equal footing is the point I was getting at, but I simply can't tell who people are talking about because no one is using examples.

So the people I encounter and deal with, my exposure to feminism counts for nothing, my criticism of the people who are far more influential today is irrelevant? Is that because it's far more damning of the attitudes of certain sections of feminism than any opposition to feminism is? Because let's be honest, Greer stands for nothing these days. She's more famous for appearing on Big Brother than she is for feminism.

I haven't claimed to stand for anything tbh, and I haven't dismissed everyone's opinion yet. But I would seriously question if people on this thread making sweeping statements about militant feminism (not you, in general) would be able to name five high ranking or well known militant feminists.

That's my very point. People aren't exposed to feminist literature, people are exposed to feminist blogs, and feminists on message boards. And when they criticise the extreme aspects they're dismissed as ignorant of the cause. I don't keep up with feminist literature, my exposure to feminism is through conversations with bloggers and people in my university, and all too often I'm dismissed because I don't agree 100% with them, and I'm questioned because I complain that extremists are tainting the reasonable standpoint of the vast majority of people who believe in egalitarianism. And I did provide you with an example of that, where a huge amount of people I know (nerds and techy people) were berated, i.e. on the Penny Arcade Rape comic.

I don't appreciate being cross-examined and being accused of ignoring the issue because of my experiences with feminism.