True, here lies another problem. Feminism is also fractioned. I tend to speak about the modern, more radical and 3rd wave feminists vs the older generations. For example older feminists find porn empowering and most current ones find it another act of the patriarchy.
If we take females who have achieved (or received) positions of power such as Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Hillary Clinton. Regardless of one’s political stance, it’s tricky to think of a female leader who was caring and nurturing. I assume their actions must have been down to internalized misogyny.
I think it essentially boils down to people being convinced that they’re 100% right. If an older feminist questions whether, say, men who identify as women are equal to women then she’s transphobic and her views are an act of violence. It’s very bizarre.
You’re getting way ahead of me. “If it’s possible to identify factors that contribute to that situation and to try to address them” as I said, should we neglect to do so entirely because of such fears? Or could it possibly be beneficial to identify reasonable ways of doing so?
Do you have an example? I got a brief overview from the wiki article, and I didn’t see anything that was raising such red flags.
There’s an entire field of educational theory that covers the optimal ways of educating children both in the home and at schools. It’s certainly not static. If research can be done that identifies problem areas and better possible approaches, that sounds totally uncontroversial and I don’t see any cause for panic or fear that boys will end up being emasculated. I’m not aware of anyone suggesting any more than that (or even that much), but I’m open to be shown otherwise, as always.
If “toxic masculinity” is used as a hammer to bash the “masculine spirit” in general, and that’s hardly unimaginable in this day and age, I agree with you. But I don’t think we have to cower in fear of sensible educational measures, either.
According to the Washington Post, it’s logical for women to hate men. Maybe Bezos is trying to atone for his toxic masculinity by printing op-eds like this:
Wow…talk about hate speech.
Does this only apply tro “toxic masculinity” ?
How about infanticides, mostly perpetrated by young mothers? Is it “toxic motherhood”?
What if we move into crime statistics that in some countries show “ethnicity X” to be overly represented in crime statistics that consider their population % ? Is it “ethnic toxicity”?
Not going to mention terrorism, it would be like shooting fish in a truck of peace.
woah. That’s … seriously unpleasant stuff.
I don’t suppose the writer is reading this, but the reason you can’t hate men (I assume that means all men) is this: the only impact it will have is upon yourself. It will make you a bitter, unhappy person weighed down by the belief that everything wrong with your life is someone else’s fault - or in this case, the fault of a cartoonish group of violent rapists and abusers. Since you have no control over men at large, you can do nothing to alleviate your rage except publish Freudian revenge fantasies; there is no resolution for you. You will end your days consumed by hatred of something that barely even exists outside of your own head.
Her diatribe reminds of a Dave Rubin video in which he challenges an Oppressed Woman to elucidate the precise nature of her oppression (round about 3:20 if you want to skip a lot of silliness, although it goes rapidly downhill from there):
I’m not so sure, finley. Suzanna Walters looks pretty happy to me (just watched one of her lectures on YouTube).
Some people enjoy hating.
Sometimes I’m not sure whether these people actually believe the ideologies they’re spouting or do it just for the rewards it brings. This woman is a tenured professor and department head at a prestigious research university, edits one of the major feminist journals and gets op-eds published in WaPo. Hatred is obviously a very profitable racket for her. I have more trouble believing that an intelligent person can believe that men are the root of all evil.
If I recall correctly, that woman also turned out to be a gender studies professor.
It possibly starts that way, but one of the interesting features of human psychology is that we come to modify our beliefs to be congruent with our behaviour. This is the theoretical basis of CBT. If you spout enough vitriol and get enough positive feedback for it, you’ll start to genuinely believe your own blather, even if it’s illogical, internally-inconsistent, or has valid intellectual objections against it.
I don’t think there are many people who could build a career out of repeating stuff they don’t believe. Apart from anything else, it would be quite hard to convincingly deliver it to an audience.
I really, really hope you’re not recalling correctly.
Sorry, not professor, “senior lecturer in women’s studies.” If she keeps up the good work, I’m sure she’ll get tenure in no time.
Unless she’s put on a massive amount of weight since then, Joelle Ruby Ryan doesn’t look much like the woman addressing Rubin in the video. Possibly she was responsible for arranging the two drones chanting something about hate speech?
Ha, yes. That appears to be a different heckler video. There are a lot of them, so it can get confusing.
Update: it appears they were there together as a group. The fat lecturer can be seen at about 7:30 in this video:
What they don’t seem to address is who will set the rules for limiting what they perceive to be hate speech. At their university it’s presumably a bunch of liberal professors giving in to a bunch of shouty people in the Department of Sociology - because they just want a quiet life. In the United States the rules will be set, at this point in time, by Donald Trump’s administration.
This is what the Founding Fathers understood and why the First Amendment is so important. I don’t like constitutions in general and am glad that my country doesn’t have one, but they got it right with this one.
The scary thing is that at most universities, a large portion of the faculty and administration agree with these limitations on free speech, and the small minority who don’t are cowed into silence.
The issue shouldn’t even be up for discussion (yes, I know, isn’t it ironic) in any university.
I don’t think that’s the PC nomenclature…
Weren’t you the one who was talking about land whales? Oh, no…sorry. That was @Andrew0409.
Ugly characters (men and women both) sounding off about who they hate the most on YouTube remind me of this:
Except those people have their lives written on their faces instead of hidden in a picture.
Wilde’s fiction and plays are dismissed these days as mawkish and flippant (and some of it is) but I still recommend reading him.
Apropos of nothing, some of you might be interested in some commentary from the other side of the fence. This is Karen Straughan with her (sympathetic) take on what’s up with men and the conflict with Feminism2.0 - in this particular video on the subject of marriage. She appears to have created a whole bunch of intelligent commentary on these issues and I’m surprised she’s not more well-known.
Although she apparently shares some of JPs views, her opinions are more of a counterpoint than a transposition of them. Well worth watching, although her videos are often much longer than most people will have time for - she would double her watchability by halving her speaking time.
This one is great stuff, although she takes a few minutes to get into her subject - which, broadly speaking, is ‘why do men get bashed for no reason?’ :