Bingo! Reviewing a book called The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Winterbuzz hits the nail on the head about Schlessinger reflexive and constant feminist bashing in the book (emphasis mine)
Let the record show that I, a feminist, have never condemned a man based on his gender. Her title alone suggests that males are “stupid” or at the very least on par with a barnyard animal.
Source: Feminist Mormon Housewives
That's just about as on target as it gets: when people ask me why I'm so comfortable with feminism, or why other men should be into feminism, it's because nobody hates men like anti-feminists hate us, nobody fears men as much as anti-feminists fear us, and nobody wants to regulate or control men as completely as anti-feminists want to regulate or control us.
And nobody, not even Twisty Faster, has more contempt for men than anti-feminists like "Doctor" Laura Schessinger has contempt for us! As Winterbuzz pithily snarks of one tidbit of "advice" for wives.
"Thank him for bringing home his paycheck and not spending it on gambling or booze or drugs or women."
(Since you’re a man, naturally gambling, booze, drugs and women are the only things you’d like to spend your hard-earned cash on.)
Or check out this Schlessinger snippet of man-hatred Winterbuzz digs up.
[M]en are simple creatures who come from a woman, are nurtured and brought up by a woman, and yearn for the continued love, admiration and approval of a woman. . . Women need to better appreciate the magnitude of their power and influence over men, and not misuse or abuse it.
To which she replies
I am soooo tired of men being described as sex-crazed animals who can barely control their urges. I’m raising boys and this offends me. My husband, brother, father and children are more than lusty lions.
I’m not trying to get off subject, but I think this idea is so pervasive in our church, it’s needs addressing...
Does that mean there's nothing to criticize about men? No. But Winterbuzz makes the strongly feminist case that men are as subject to the system of Patriarchy as women. And, also with strongly feminist sensibilities, she makes the case that the way out is not more of the anti-feminism Schlessinger and her male and female allies long for. (Again, emphasis mine.)
Reducing men to sex-crazed animals who can’t control themselves absolves them from responsibility and self control. And while boys might lust after girls, society has proven that no matter what we do to curb this, it still happens. It’s nature friends! The perpetuation of the species kinda depends on it. But that’s an argument for another day, the bottom line is girls should not be taught that their bodies are tools for the whims of men. Girls are objectified everyday in many, many way, and using religion to perpetuate those attitudes is called spiritual violence. Our church (and this book) objectifies women as domestic objects. And while our church might not mean to do it, it contributes to an attitude that continues to claim that men are weak, over-sexed animals and women are responsible to counteract that.
Got that last bit? Anti-feminists don't resent feminists for putting men down. They resent that feminists are refusing to sacrifice themselves to keep men down. The complete failure to recognize this near mirror-image of reality is the source of almost all misunderstanding of the relationship of feminism to men. Because unlike women like Schlessinger feminists want to be men's peers, not our subordinates and certainly not our minders, mothers, wranglers, or butlers. And straight feminists (and almost all feminists are) want partners they can respect in the morning.
When your entire expectation is, as Schlessinger approvingly quotes a caller as saying, "Men are only interested in two things: If I’m not horny, make me a sandwich," there's no, zero, none room for respect.
I'll take feminists any day, thank you.
Your obsession with comparing
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 01:34.Your obsession with comparing the misandry of of feminists and "anti-feminists" is so bizarre. Whom are you even trying to persuade with this line of argument? Social conservatives and mras are both against feminism but for entirely different reasons and really have nothing important in common. I loathe Laura Schlessinger and I can't imagine there's an mra who doesn't. Also, social conservatives are probably far more threatened by the positions of mras than of feminists. Sarah Palin feels comfortable calling herself a feminist, but who amongst conservative politicians take up men's rights issues as a leading platform?
Why are men better off with feminists than with mras; that would be a worthwhile argument for you to try to make.
Where's the misandry in
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-03-16 06:42.Where's the misandry in Winterbuzz's post tu quoque? Did you read it? You're going to have to do back twists to deny she's a feminist but there she's sitting standing up for the men in her life against gross characterization. Where the particulars of the mischaracterizations are commonly attributed to feminism. When they're exactly the opposite.
I actually agree with a lot of MRA goals, not least because most MRA goals are indistinguishable from feminist goals. What I don't care for, and I think is a huge mistake, is that I still haven't meet an MRA who didn't think feminists are the problem (not part of the problem, *the* problem) instead of part of the solution (but not *all* the solution.)
figleaf
Yes, I did read the post. My
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 22:05.Yes, I did read the post. My point wasn't that that particular post was, in fact, misandric. My point was that you're not in any way proving that feminism is good for men by comparing the gender perspectives of some obscure blogger and a well known socon asshole. I could just as easily compare Andrea Dworkin with Glenn Sacks to show that feminism is a horrible option for men. Cherry picking figureheads for rhetorical reasons is hardly a convincing way to argue your case. Are some feminists less misandric than some social conservatives? Of course, but so what? Again, there are more idealogical alternatives than the two.
There are in fact beliefs that unite feminists in a general. Feminists believe that patriarchy exists in Western cultures and that the gender system overall benefits men and oppresses women. These beliefs are false and harm men, especially men who are victims of sexual violence. That's why mras see feminism as a problem. Showing that there are tons of shitty repubs and gender traditionalists out there doesn't change that, and mras are already aware of that fact anyway.
Feminists believe OK, STOP
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2011-11-27 14:58.Feminists believe
OK, STOP right there. If the only thing you know about someone is that they identify as a feminist, the only thing you know about that person is that they believe men and women are equal. Saying all feminists believe in x is just wrong. We don't all think the same way; there are as many approaches to feminism as there are feminists. I for one believe patriarchy exsists in western culture and hurts EVERYBODY.
I present supporting
Submitted by MoonlitNight (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 08:58.I present supporting anecdata. My parents are retired, and my father has always been an absent-minded professor type who needs a certain amount of managing. My mother is a control freak, and the only person left in reach for her to control is my dad. But these facts merely exaggerate the dynamics caused by the script.
My mother routinely bemoans how helpless my father is, but constantly serves and controls him in ways that render him ever more dependent. He used to be a functioning adult male, at least by 1960s standards, but today he can't make his own sandwiches or match his own socks. She cooks his food, cleans his house, folds his laundry, lays out his clothes, plans his days...such a perfect helpful wife. Today, when my mother outlines a plan, my father won't get more than 2 syllables into a protest before he stops himself, because he knows it will fail anyway. So he retreats into his own little world full of telescopes, novels, and model trains, and my mother gets angrier and angrier that she has to work, taking care of him, while my father plays.*
The emotional atmosphere in that house is an incredibly toxic brew of anger, resentment, and despair caused by the double inequality and how badly they are trapped by each other. They're both waiting, at least subconsciously, for him to die, so that she can be free.
Had my mother become a feminist, I think they would have both been much much happier.
* When I was little, he did freelance computer consulting and some lawnmowing and other household repairs. My mother raised 2 children, cooked for 4 including my diabetic father who refused to manage his own diet, ran the house to a very high and labour-intensive standard with no help, and maintained a 2-acre garden with many decorative beds but also several kitchen gardens, a cornfield, and an apple orchard. She also preserved and froze the resulting produce. Now she still runs the house and garden, cooks *every* meal and snack for both herself and my diabetic father who's routinely up to 4am even though she's a morning person, and does personal care for my father since his operation. Oh, and for my entire life she's also done a lot of volunteer work, then and now. Why yes, she DOES fall asleep within 10 minutes anytime she sits down. All this energy, drive and intelligence has been wasted on laundry and dusting.
"Had my mother become a
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-03-16 12:00."Had my mother become a feminist, I think they would have both been much much happier."
Almost certainly. She could even kept doing a bunch of the things she loved, like gardening and cooking. (I like planning, shopping for, and cooking literally all the meals in the house year after year.) But if she chose to do that it would have felt like a *choice* and not an obligation. Plus she could have found a bunch of other stuff she could also do that might have made her even happier. Someone who might be able to manage a 1,000-employee business isn't going to be all that happy with just one person to "manage" at home. And neither will he.
Thanks, MoonLight!
fl
Love this post. I've used
Submitted by Fanged Butterfly (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 09:07.Love this post. I've used your great arguments about how anti-feminists hurt men with some of my wary-of-feminism friends, and it's actually brought a few people around. I think the argument is truly compelling.
Maybe most feminists are straight just because most people are (statistically speaking, 80-85% or so), but I'm a young queer woman in college and the vast majority (like, 99%) of the queer community here would identify themselves as feminist. I think you can't discount GLBT feminists, since often we have complicated gender identities and an entirely different perspective on gender roles in the first place.
Hi Fanged Butterfly, The
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-03-16 11:53.Hi Fanged Butterfly,
The reason I put so much emphasis on the straightness of most feminists is to counter the anti-feminist charge that all feminists are "Birkenstock and wool sock wearing hairy-legged feminist separatist lesbians." I think it's especially important to emphasize this when debating MRAs because of the Rule #1 concern that women generally don't like men, or sex, or sex with men, and that therefore lesbian separatism is the "logical" end state of feminism. Instead of just one of a bazillion possible points to land depending on a fairly complex set of life experiences and inclinations.
But you're right that by word count, anyway, that means I underrepresent LBGT feminism.
Thanks for the nudge, by the way. Because something else I need do say more often in this context is that by far political conservatism is a far, far better predictor of "man hating" than orientation. And separatists mostly just want to be left alone. Laura Schlessinger, Newt Gingrich, and, say, John McCain types want to regiment men down to the lengths of our fingernails!
Thanks!
figleaf
You are so welcome, and thank
Submitted by Fanged Butterfly (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 20:10.You are so welcome, and thank YOU.
I agree that the MRA fear of lesbian separatism is the logical conclusion of the Two Rules of Desire- since men can't be desired, it makes sense to fear that the ladies will all run off with each other. But simultaenously it erases women's desire and agency, because it assumes that women do these things because of men, not because they have authentic desires of their own.
"But simultaneously it erases
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2011-03-16 21:54."But simultaneously it erases women's desire and agency, because it assumes that women do these things because of men, not because they have authentic desires of their own."
Nicely said, FB! (I try to say stuff like that but it usually takes me paragraphs and paragraphs.) It's the dirty underbelly of Rule #1. (Which reminds me, I'm going to add it to the list, with a link to your comment.)
Thanks!
figleaf
Oh, wow! Thanks, I feel so
Submitted by Fanged Butterfly (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 21:59.Oh, wow! Thanks, I feel so honored :)
Wow, are you wrong about
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 22:24.Wow, are you wrong about mras, especially the newer generation. The whole feminist=lesbian separatist is totally a stereotypical socon belief. One of perspective altering epiphanies you acquire from participating in mra forums is that ALL women are feminists. Lesbians, sorority girls, female CEOs, hipster chicks, nuns, all of them. The only difference between them is what they believe is the best way to exploit men. Socons believe that motherhood and the princess complex is the best way to manipulate men, while nominal feminists believe that victimhood and the guilt complex is the best way.
And you couldn't be more off base with the idea that mras believe men can't be desired. Mras are all about taking women of their pedestals, including their sexual pedestal. While mras and puas don't completely see eye to, they both agree that men should have to work harder at courtship due to some male sexual inferiority.
And trust me, mras are not worried about lesbian separatism at all. Have you hear of mgtow? Some mras are becoming separatists themselves.
that should read: "men
Submitted by tu quoque (not verified) on Wed, 2011-03-16 22:29.that should read: "men SHOULDN'T have to work harder at courtship..."
And it should be noted that, while lesbians remain consistently feminist, gay men are increasingly abandoning feminism. I've been noticing with more frequency gay men saying hearteningly anti-feminist things in public.