Daphne Patai 'Road to Heterophobia' wrote;

"They claim it's a misrepresentation of feminism, but it's not a misrepresentation. As someone who spent 10 years in women's studies, I know that male bashing has always been a very important part of feminism."

"Feminism aims to model the behaviour that helps people to reject their own victimhood"

WOW this must be a new type of feminism that I haven't heard of yet. It sounds more like humanism.

Firstly we were told that feminims was about achieving equality for men and women and freeing us from the social constraints of our gender roles.

Well I still waiting!

Having read numerous volumes of feminist texts and books, I started wondering 'do feminists have anything positive to say about men?'

Some of the logic just gave me a splitting headache trying to read it and understanding was next to impossible. I think quantum physics might have been easier on the neurons.

The twists and turns, the convulated agruements.

Daphne Patai taught me a new word.

'Sophistry'

Mired in all the rethoric, defeating the best and worst efforts of so few. Is human nature. Some people are selfish and self centered beleiving the world revolves around them. Fortunately for us there are others who are not so self consumed.

Toby Green wrote;

"Stay put when she comes back with ‘You’re being overly sensitive. I was only joking.’ Most women have a harder time being wrong than men because they actually think they’re better people. Be prepared for her saying, ‘Now you’ve really made me feel bad.’ which may be true but it’s also an attempt at being the victim of this conversation."

As can be seen from my earlier contribution I saw the author's article as a plea (or maybe a thinly disguised demand) not to criticise feminism. That demand is unsatisfactory and unrealistic for many reasons, not the least being that it calls for censorship of free speech.

As I see it, this remains the issue at hand (that feminism somehow should be 'above' criticism) and I am reminded of it by the mention of Daphne Patai whose essay Will the Real Feminists in Academe Please Stand Up? is well worth reading and could in itself be the best answer to the OLO author’s rhetoric. Here is the link: http://daphnepatai.com

I think the previous respondent’s (JamesH) reference to sophistry is a good call when referring to the rhetoric of gender feminists. Sophistry and collectivism just about sums them up.

"So go on, people. Fight your gender wars, vilify each other, stick on labels, generalise and be hateful to your heart’s content. Just leave feminists out of it."

You are right Cornflour.

For the last thirty or fourty years as not only Daphne Patai points out 'male bashing has been an important aspect of the feminist movement.'

Now I think, mainly due to the influence of the internet. Information which was once previously carefully engineered and disseminated through restricted sources. The internet bypasses these mechanisms of censorship and propaganda.

For example books written by Daphne Patai or Melaine Phillips are not imported into Australia. Now all one has to do is order over the internet.

Suddenly people can compare notes and share information like never before, when someone writes and article about feminism today. It doesnt matter if it is in America or the UK, I can read that same article the day that it was posted on the internet.

Suddenly the emotive scaremongering is loosing it's effectiveness. for example the 'Super bull sunday.'

Research papers are falling apart.

For decades men have been "vilified, had labels stuck on them, generalise and be hateful" by feminists.

The caring and sharing feminists by their very silence supported this vilification and male bashing. They do not even recognise their own 'misandry' because it has become such an accepted part of society.

Yes it is uncomfortable experience just as Don Quixote found out when a mirror is held up to show his reflection.

It is not villifying men to stand up for women, yet this seems to be offensive to some people.
Men are like any group with more power, they find it hard to see that they have it. This is understandable, when you have something you often only notice it when it is threatened or goes.
Many of you will howl with outrage that I claim men - as a group - have more power than women, but on any objective measure, that is so. They control more of the world's wealth, run virtually all the world's governments and major businesses and institutions, they own most of the world's land, earn more of the world's wages. This situation cannot be glossed over or argued away. Women, certainly western women anyway, are starting to chip slowly away at this power imbalance. Is this why feminists have become so villified, because they are a threat? This recognition of reality is not a villification of individual men, if women one day are the major power holders they will be just as blind, and just as vigorous in defending what they have. That is human nature. I don't blame men, or think they are villains for wanting to keep what they have. Indeed, I admire, deeply, those men who recognise the injustice of the situation and actively encourage women to more fully participate and join them. But, as a woman and as the mother of daughters, I will not sit in silence when I am told women have nothing to complain of, or that we are not entitled to claim our seat at the table.

ena
You can have your seat at the table anytime. Go out into the world, do what it is that drives you to be you, create, contribute, begin any enterprise. Bring your own seat to the table and you will be accepted as an equal and room will be made for you. But to promote social sexual divisions, proclaim feminine ideology the only correct thinking, politically position women to usurp a mans chair at that table. No sister. Your wrong. Every generation unto itself. Todays man does not owe you his chair at that table. Woman is not entitled to run another fellows business or be the CEO. And yesterday is not an excuse for womans feminist actions today.
If your going to be a housewife be a housewife. If your going to be a business woman be a business woman. You can not be the worlds best Mom and the worlds best business woman. Men sacrifice greatly to have the stations they aspire to hold. It is not a free ride in the male world.
Honest women know the beating one takes getting to the top of any endeavour. Dishonest women who had not the fortitude nor requisite skills blame men for their lack of success. Just because you decided to show up doesn't mean that you now take control as a right. And that's what men find offensive. TODAY.

ena, can I suggest that you have a read of William Farrells book "The Myth of Male Power". There are aspects that I don't like, in my view he writes like too many advocates, taking worst cases as examples to prove his point and he may be misusing statistics. Critics also refer to a playboy interview from many years ago where he appears to have suggested that there may be a positive side to incest. The book is still worth a read because much of what he has to say is spot on and are issues I've rarely heard in discussions.

If men have all the power why do we have a smaller proportion of the vote in most western countries (we are generally outnumbered), why do we get killed on the job at far higher rates than women, why do we die in wars in overwhelmingly larger numbers than women, why do men make up the vast bulk of the employee's in most of the wrost jobs? Why do we face the kind of pressures which lead to us suiciding at far higher rates than women, why is our life expectancy significantly lower than womens (although the gap appears to be decreasing in recent years)?

When in history have the powerful been the ones expected to stand and hold the door for the oppressed, to do the dirty and dangerous jobs the oppressed are unwilling to do, to give up their seat for the oppressed, to place their lives at risk to defend the oppressed against an attacker? Compare the traditional behavious associated with being a gentleman and the behaviours required of servants and slaves and the power/oppressed model gets a bit shakey.

I think that the much of the basis for the belief in male power has been built on a selective look at historical roles and stereotypes and has ignored aspects which should be considered to give a fairer understanding.

R0bert