Feminism vs. Gay men

I'm quite confident if I called some folks here 'sissies', they would flip out, even if the logic is the same there as it is here. See, to use gay men as an example, the vast majority of them that I see are flamboyant and lean more towards the feminine side. Therefore ALL MEN are sissies.

"NOW HOLD ON A MINUTE! I AIN'T NO GOD DAMN SISSY!"
But you must be, because it's what I see the most of.

"THAT'S STEREOTYPING!"
Why is it only stereotyping now? Why do we allow the very vocal minority to represent the majority?

"With feminism, it's different..."
I've heard the same remarks come out of bigot mouths, too.

The irony would be hilarious, if folks weren't so serious...

 

Oh no guys, it's the voice of reason! *le gasp* :eek:

 

Isn't this just the "No True Scotsman" fallacy though?

No True Scotsman - RationalWiki

To apply the fallacy in this context would mean that we cannot criticize any aspect of feminism or any voice within the feminist movement because what we are criticizing is not 'real feminism'.

 

There are all types of feminists, just as there are all types of gay people. They are all "true".

I will never call myself a feminist because of the factions that are...idiots. The man-haters, the anti-gay, the ones who abuse single parents, male or female, the ones who feel they have the right to dictate how others live their lives.

Screw them!

Or rather, I would never screw them. My standards are too high.

 

I think there is a definite irony in the Rose McGowan case.

At that time it was widely claimed that gay men are more misgynistic due to comments made mocking women or gay men touching women innapropriately (despite I must add, women who do the same not being called out). Despite the behaviour being referred to largely committed by femme men in the gay club and drag scene, this was blamed on misogyny and "the patriarchy".

At the same time you have a narrative that exists that says femme gay men often receive abuse from non-femme men due to misogyny and "the patriarchy".

Soooooo apparently "the patriarchy" causes non-femme men to hate femme men, who go on to "hate" femme women, who in turn hate femme men for acting like femme women which if you ask me...sounds pretty damn misogynistic. :lol: Oh its a funny old world!

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2015 at 02:11 PM ----------

I think there is perhaps a "slight" difference looking at your example.

In the former group being "sissies" they are likely simply acting in a way that is comfortable for them, and they cannot truly be said to be hurting anyone. Add that to the very difficult situation they are in socially in terms of acceptance it would be wholly inappropriate to call them out in such a manner.

With radical feminists the key difference is they are voluntarily acting in a manner that is harmful to others, so yes they should be labelled and categorised, if only to focus the attention on those who really need the platform.

---------- Post added 11th Oct 2015 at 02:23 PM ----------

I think for me the biggest issue is the black and white notions of "male privilege" (ignoring variable factors such as wealth, upbringing, health, race, location, class, education etc etc) and "the patriarchy" causing problems.

Many feminists talk about the above and go on the attack on men, even censoring discussion of issues affecting men (I've heard of women's groups belittling men's mental health charities for example, charities that gay men probably benefit from a lot). As gay men are still ultimately men they face a double penalty here. One, they are likely to suffer as a result as they are men, and two, they are likely to have additional suffering due to being gay.

I've heard some feminists try to get around this by saying "gay men only suffer because of the patriarchy" or "obviously I don't mean gay men, they are different" but I actually think this is quite ignorant, it kind of acts to misgender gay men as some other category of "non-men". Sure talk about sexuality and the differences and discrimination this can cause - but don't discuss this using terms of "Men= problem, Gay Men= not". Gay men ARE men, get the terminology right!

 

True. But my focus was on the line of thinking people take, with a grade school level example, and 'sissy' seemed juvenile enough. I figured somebody else would come along and cover the serious stuff -- there's a point where it just becomes tedious.

Still, thanks Dad. I'll try harder next time! =P

<3

 

Um. I listened to roughly five minutes of the video. It is all based around an article published nearly a year ago and statements made by Rose McGowan. Keeping in mind that reading the article in question, she sounds like she is a raving lunatic. Not to mention that she is actively pissed off about the boycott of the Brunei-owned Dorchester Hotel Collection, which effectively undermines any credibility that she might have.

She says, "There is Sharia law active in Saudi Arabia, there’s a woman who’s about to be stoned – I have not heard [AIDS activist] Cleve Jones discuss her, and nor will he." Then in the next breath she complains that the Dorchester boycott is being pushed by some gay activists because--wait for it--because the Sultan of Brunei introduced Sharia law to his country.

If this fool wanted to try and drive a wedge between gay men and feminists, then there were much better selections he could have used.

 

Well, again, it's the line of thinking I was jabbing at. The whole, I see one person/group do this, therefore they all are doing, or will do, this. My focus wasn't on directly comparing feminism to sissies, as I assumed somebody else would tackle the other, often acknowledged pieces. I've learned any topic with feminism as the primary or potential discussion piece, is bound to grind down into the same arguments, same points, same sides. And usually due to the part I jabbed at, which I feel is the overlooked aspect.

I find this pretty amusing, though, that I'm be using the word "sissy" in a serious context. Life's interesting, sometimes...

But to answer your question about why the radicals receive press and attention. It's quite simple really. They're more interesting. People respond to sensationalism, that's a fact. Look at how news agencies handle a story, they'll tweak and spin it as best they can, to incite some emotional reactionary response.

"Woman's group advocates for equal pay by protesting" is not as much click/eye bait as, say, "Woman's group temporarily shut down company". You can enhance or suppress to one side or the other, because news has become more about popularity and attention than about being fair and balanced -- and yes, I just referenced Fox News's little slogan.

 

I didn't need to go any further. His point of view was clear, "feminism baaaaaaadddddd", and he was using as his initial example something completely ridiculous to prop up his argument. I mean, what the hell? Did you even read the article he's talking about? She sounds like she is tripping out on drugs, and she is undermining herself with every other word. She is barely coherent.

I disregard what you bring to the table on this subject because I know you have a major hard on against feminism, and no matter to what degree someone engages you nothing will change. People (not myself) on this forum have engaged you again and again, both publicly and privately. Yet, you disregard everything they say, or you take it at face value at the moment, but disregard it all later and post other slanderous threads like this. Engaging you on this topic is not really worth the effort, except to expose your nonsense arguments to a more broader audience, since you've proven that you aren't interested in changing your opinion.

Furthermore, you insult us by posting these slanderous threads, in what I can only assume is a willful misrepresentation of our real views--which we have engaged you on again and again. Imagine if I was posting pro-feminists threads that intentionally slandered non-feminists, painting them in the most ridiculous light possible--such as grunting cavemen, who were too stupid to think for themselves, and basically saying 'this is what all non-feminists are like! Now let's have a discussion!' Yeah, I imagine that wouldn't be insulting at all, right? However, you seem to think it is just fine to do exactly that.

So, enjoy your stereotypes, I guess. I'll show up when I see them to disregard them. However, I know how things will go with you on this issue, and I am not interested in wasting my time. Maybe one day you'll finally give up whatever vendetta you have against feminism, and start to become a reasonable person to communicate with on this issue. Though, clearly, today is not that day.

 

Well, at least you are admitting that your posts here are slanderous hit pieces, not truly intended to provoke an actual dialog, but rather to drive home some imaginary grudge that you have.

Honestly, it's a bit like when radical right wing Christians hold up some "ex-gay" person, who talks about how awful his life was prior to becoming "ex-gay", as he goes into detail of the hundreds of men he slept with, and all the other sorts of nonsense. All of which is intended to portray being gay as equal to that persons experience. It may sway some people, but it doesn't represent the experiences of the majority. It is also, of course, intended to be anti-gay propaganda. That is what your posts here are, anti-feminist propaganda.

Feminism, as you know, is not some unified ideology. There are good feminists and bad feminists. There are feminists that I hate with a burning red hot passion, such as anti-trans* feminists. There are feminists who hate men as well. However, all of those people make up a tiny minority of the larger movement. Hell, I'm not even in the mainstream of the movement either, as a radical Queer Feminist.

As you know, feminism is complex. It is not a simple one word thing that you can apply broadly, unless you want to simply talk about feminism meaning a fight for gender equality. However, of course, that only touches the philosophical surface--it's the matter of how we get there that causes the most division.

You know all of this, and yet here you are continuing on with your propaganda. Do you expect me to engage you differently? Do you expect me to pretend that this is the first time you've done this? Do you expect me to not call this out for what it is, and play along at your game? Sorry, that's not going to happen. I'm simply calling things out for what they are, and holding out some slim hope that someday, eventually, you will step out of whatever bubble you've entered into an actually listen to people who were (at one time) willing to engage you. As things stand now, most feminists on this board are mostly ignoring you, simply because we've all danced with you to this song before--many, many, many times.

 

...and who gets to define what is sensible and reasonable feminism? You?

I regularly engage with the opinions of people who disagree with me. However, the difference is that I am seeking people who are intellectual, actually engage core philosophical beliefs, and do not attempt to engage in propaganda. I avoid exposing myself to propaganda and other mind rotting nonsense.

As an example, I sometimes enjoy listening to conservative Christians discussing gender roles and norms. They are actually offering an alternative to feminism: a patriarchal view of the world. They are committed to not only upholding the status quo, but returning to a more patriarchal past. They have their reasons for believing what they do, and so they engage feminism on a more philosophical level--even though it is a position I strongly disagree with. Even though I disagree with them, I respect them to some degree because they are honest. They are upfront about what they believe, what they want, and the alternative that they offer.

You come here offering nothing. You offer no viable alternative. You have no philosophy of your own. You simply pick out random shit that any reasonable person would disagree with, and attempt to paint all feminists with a broad and generalized brush.

If you were interested in actually engaging, you would engage the philosophical core of feminism, and then offer an alternative philosophy. Are you arguing in favor of a patriarchal culture? If not, then you are a feminist, unless you are arguing in favor of a matriarchal culture. Honestly, you have no coherent philosophical belief that you have ever put forward to be examined.

 

Real feminism is not about female supremacy, its about equality and ridding the world of misogyny. I don't know where this strain of homophobic feminism came from but I've never encountered it before. None of the feminists I know in real life are like this at all.

Feminism also fights for men's equality as well. When a man is told to "man up" this is springs from the same root as a woman being told that she'll never be able to own her own company. The common root is misogyny. So often when men are oppressed it comes from society telling them to not be feminine in any way because being a woman is the worst thing he could be. When we are trying to insult a man we call him a "pussy" because the worst thing that he could be in society's eyes is feminine.

Feminism works to eradicate society bias against femininity, not just women and that serves not only men but the gay community as well. All to often I encounter misogyny in LGBTQ+ spaces. A gay man that I know actually said to me "I'm not a faggot. Those gays with limp wrists and high voices are faggots.". This mentality also springs from a hatred of femininity better known as misogyny.

 

I'm not gonna go into detail here, but I don't have a problem with gay men at all. In fact, they're usually much, much more interesting than straight men. Like, I hardly ever see straight guys cosplay for example. I wouldn't be here if I disliked gay men. :lol:

I just want everyone to get along... but I know that isn't going to happen because, you know, humans. Silly humans.

 

Well, I guess that being a misogynist can be added to being a racist, since I'm apparently one of those.

.......

For real, though...can people just stop passing judgment on others because they don't follow the prescribed views and actions?

 

Maybe it is confusing and complicated to you, but that is only because you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental core element that unites all feminist thought, A.K.A. the consistent message that you say doesn't exist: the belief that all people, regardless of gender, should be equal.

To the degree that it is "confusing" it is a bit like saying atheism is confusing. Atheism is the belief that no deities exist--that there are no gods. Yet, beyond that, atheism is a huge diverse line of thought. I extend atheism out to include the disbelief in all things supernatural, but the reality is that there are some atheists who believe in ghosts and other stupid shit. Likewise, the philosophical implications of atheism is hotly debated, and even how we engage with non-atheists is contested. Some atheists are more militant, seeking to completely eradicate all superstition and religion in general, while others prefer an entirely different approach.

Looking at the complexities between atheists, and then asserting that it is a 'tangled up confusing mess with no consistent message' would just be false. Atheists all agree on a single core principle (that there are no gods), and beyond that core principle there is a huge range of diversity. Feminism is the same. All feminists agree that there should be equality between the genders, as that is the core of feminism--if you don't believe that, then you are fundamentally changing the meaning of feminism--but beyond that there is a huge range of diversity of views. Some are good. Others are bad.

LOL. You say, "feminism focuses only on women" when just prior to that you point out that feminists also discuss LGBT and racial issues as well. :rolle:

So, I guess this is supposed to be an attack on intersectional feminism? Do you even know what intersectional feminism is?

It sounds like to me that you attack feminism because it focuses heavily on issues facing women, and then out the other side of your mouth you attack feminism because it attempts to address issues that don't ONLY impact women. You realize this is logically incoherent, correct?

Wrong. I am a feminist and on balance I spend more time talking about issues facing men than women, primarily because I am speaking to other men about feminism. The only reason the larger community of feminism focuses so heavily on women's issues is because the overwhelming majority of feminists are women. There is obvious self-interest there--it's like attacking the LGBT community for primarily focusing on LGBT issues. It's not that we don't care about other issues, it's just a matter of self-interest.

If more men become feminists, then the issues facing men get a broader voice, which is why it is important for more men to become feminists.

Except, that "working together" has no underlying philosophical goal involved. Feminism is NOT just about say, ending pay discrimination against women, as an example. It is not just about tackling "problems." It is, as I previously stated, about creating equality between the genders.

Once again, I spend a great deal of time discussing issues that face men from the perspective of feminism. Some of the more broader topics that I regularly tackle are cultural notions that men can't be or shouldn't be victims (this involves everything from emotional abuse, physical abuse, to rape), to valuing the bodies of men (specifically as it relates to circumcision and other violent acts against men), and more broadly an assault on patriarchal culture which oppresses men in countless ways (as it oppresses everyone).

So, to even say this it makes it clear that you don't even know what patriarchy is, because it demonstrates the belief that women can't perpetuate patriarchy which is blatantly false. Women perpetuate patriarchy all the time, just as men do. It is no different than when a gay man holds stupid beliefs which advance heterosexism against our community (i.e. verbal attacks on feminine gay men). Does the advancement of patriarchy hurt women? Of course. However, the advancement of patriarchy hurts everyone.

The problem with patriarchy is that it CANNOT be fixed through the government. It is a social and cultural problem, and it can only be solved through radical social and cultural changes. This is one of the reasons, in my view, many feminists run away from what is necessary to actually achieve the aims of feminism, instead focusing on easier to solve problems (i.e. equal pay, for example).

What is patriarchy in a nutshell? It's a social and cultural system that values men (and more specifically perceptions of masculinity) over women (and more specifically perceptions of femininity). This is the reason so many insults against men are degrading them to women: you're a sissy, stop acting like a girl, man up, etc. Simply saying things like that means that you have certain stereotypes about how a man should act and be, and certain stereotypes about women and that you clearly view those stereotypes about women as being less favorable than the stereotypes you hold about men. This is why, among gay men, feminine gay men are always under direct assault both inside and outside of the community.

The type of system that I advocate for, the realization of the feminist goal, is a society in which gender stereotypes and gender roles cease to exist. Gender simply becomes a personal identity. I feel like a man, therefore I am a man. What does it mean to be a man? I get to define that. To be a man, all I have to do is say that I am a man, and that is enough. There is no inherent value--negative or positive--that is attached to that label, because people are not viewed through a gendered lens, they are viewed as individuals.

I've often said the litmus test to see when feminism is successful, is the day that a biological male who identifies as a heterosexual male, can wake up, decide that he wants to be a fashion designer, decide that he wants to present himself in a feminine way (long hair, make-up, clothing that we'd consider feminine), and this male is a teenager. He can walk to school presenting as his authentic self. No one ostracizes him. No one questions his sexuality. No one questions his gender identity. No one sees him as being 'less than a man.' No parents call to complain. No one makes fun of him. In fact, he is considered to be perfectly normal by his High School peers. ...and all of this would take place in a rural small town in Mississippi, Alabama, or Oklahoma. For me, that is the litmus test for the victory of feminism which is ultimately the destruction of patriarchal culture.

As a radical Queer Feminist I argue that it is queer people who are the keys to the destruction of patriarchal culture. What unites our community is that we are all deviating from expected gender roles and norms. Men are supposed to marry women. Women are supposed to marry men. Biological sex and gender are the same--a woman can't have a penis. It is no accident that trans women and non-gender conforming gay men are the most often targeted for violence and hatred by society. It is because as biological males by deviating from patriarchal norms, we are abandoning the privilege given to us by society. We are electing, in being authentic to who we are, to give up that privilege in order to live authentic lives. As society grows to accept queer values surrounding sexuality and gender, the roles of gender and gender stereotypes in our culture and society will begin to erode. This alone may not be completely enough, but it will bring us as close as we can possibly get to dismantling patriarchal culture.

...and by the way, when I do advocate for the equality and rights of women, it is not just because I believe women ARE equal to men and deserve the same rights and opportunities. It is also from a position of self-interest. Equality for queer people is directly linked to the way women are treated in society. It is not an accident that in nations where women enjoy more equality to men, are also some of the best and safest places for queer people to live. Conversely, places where women are NOT equal to men and particularly places where women are still viewed as property, it is some of the most dangerous and worst places for queer people to live. By elevating the status of women, it also undermines patriarchal social values and customs, which in turn opens the door for queer people.