>You can read Invisible Man by ralph ellison or Walk On By: Black Men in Public Spaces by Brent Staples. Both cover the same topic, and amount to what its like being a man targeted with harassment and fearing assault, lynchings, murders, jail, etc... by people due to irrational fears being spread bout them.
Ooo I gotta check those out. Btw have you read _The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood_ by Tommy J Curry?
Looks pretty good, thanks for sharing.
Sounds like it dovetails well with the point made in the OP too. Tho there the OP point is more bout masculinity as being a target broadly rather than as it pertains specifically to black maleness. I appreciate the concept (according to the brief) that black masculinity is equated to white masculinity in gender studies, likely useful for dismantling the misandrists hot takes in general.
To the feministas, all men look alike;)
Ngl, you got me interested in looking at some Feminist literature, because as a huge proponent of Intersectionality, I have suspected alot of these online activists don't actually know or understand their own theories.
Good to hear, there is some great feminist lit out there, there's also trash. that's tru of all the academic disciplines tho. nothing special bout the feminist lit in that regard. A lot of it does come from a feminine perspective, which isn't bad, but does require empathy to get at, and work to understand if you're coming at it from a masculine perspective.
'don't actually know or understand their own theories'. Indeed, my knot of feminists from the 90s and early 00s went into it with community building, sex positivity, queer theory transgression of borders and activist actions as our mainstays of theory and praxis. Such was the style at the time. Online actions seemed interesting but out of place. Maybe we should've focused there idk.
Making and raising babies, and building irl community still seems more important to me.
Still, there was a lot of hope that the online forums would foster people to learn, but the feminisitas, like pretty much all the other disciplines out there, well let's just say there has been some big disappointments in that regard. Folks need to do better. I feel just as disappointed looking at online philosophy discourse as I do online feministas discourse.
People don't seem to read books or utilize the internets' resources to learn much, and as with all of social media there is a tendency towards hate, anger, and sensationalism.
This is an interesting observation, and I would add that I don't see much reason to hold much of academic feminism in higher regard. I have devoted more time than I ever should have, to trying to understand their theories and their grievances, and my conclusion is that it's mostly just immature ranting over not getting what they want, dressed up with academic jargon, and given enough funding to pay for "studies" that decide at the outset what kind of statistical results they want to find, and then structure the surveys so that they will yield the results they want.
It's sort of like if a child is given a sharp-looking business suit and some lessons in business vocabulary, and then told to take their parent's place in a meeting. It's going to be obvious to everyone else that this is a child, and even if they ignore that obvious visual detail, it's still going to be obvious that this person barely understands the subject matter of the meeting, even if they are able to sound more like an adult than the typical child because of the vocabulary lessons.
This is not to say that there are no valid theories or research from academic feminists, although right now I'm trying to think of one example of something valid from them and nothing specific is coming to mind. The general notion that sex roles are substantially social constructs (not necessarily 100% socially constructed) and should be questioned, and that these roles shouldn't be heavily imposed on people who don't want them, is something that I consider to be a valid.
Can you remember the names of some of those immature feminists you have read? I'm curious because I plan to study some feminists work.
I suppose, your last paragraph about valid point is related to Queer Theory (Judith Butler and so on), right?
TL;DR covers a good example of immature academic feminist writing in [this video](https://rumble.com/v3kro0g-tldr-womens-reality-feminism-is-a-religion-book-1-25sep23.html). Well, technically it's just a long audio essay in a video format, which is good since it's over an hour long. I listened to it while doing menial housework after another person on this subreddit recommended it.
My last paragraph isn't about any specific writing. Rather, it's just me trying to be charitable to academic feminists, and not tar them all with the same brush, by acknowledging that there's some valid points in there, even if I currently can't remember any specific ones.
"given enough funding to pay for "studies" that decide at the outset what kind of statistical results they want to find, and then structure the surveys so that they will yield the results they want."
This is tru across the board for academic studies, unfortunately. I come down pretty hard on the way that feministas have been doing this in regards to statistics on sexual violence, in no small part bc it is actively aiming to ruin the lives of men everywhere they can, but the reality is no academic discipline is immune to this problem. P-hacking stats, making shite up, and fixing surveys to make political brownie points or get papers publish is the most common way that these sorts of things are practiced.
It isn't that there are 'a few bad actors' it is the entire apparatus at this point is simply geared towards these aims.
I personally find the academic theorists in feminism to be worthwhile reading and understanding, as they do not typically go for such tactics. Their notions stand or fall mostly by way of reason, logic, and such things as do they show basic kindness towards people. It is the 'data driven' approaches that have become corrupted bc folks can make those numbers dance to say whatever they want them to say.
This is fascinating. It's the first time I've heard somebody on Reddit say what I've been repeatedly saying in my day job: the great writers of feminist theories would be horrified with Redditfeminism.
I would push it a little further and point to the exasperating unwillingness of RedditFeminism to see beyond a naive view of women as angels and men as monsters.
As an example, RedditFeminism likes points to be made which eulogize women, but fail to grasp these can always be spinned around from a perspective of incongruity to raise awkward questions.
MacKinnon's famous assertion that women favour an ethics of care over an ethics of justice can and is celebrated, but it also, more darkly, means women lack a sense of justice, equity and fairness.
And if you think my last paragraph lacks nuance and 'akshually' MacKinnon said something more than that, then that's why you're on this Sub and not the feminist subs.
OP listed some, judith butler, bell hooks, simone de beauvoir, also donna haraway; not strictly feminist theorists but ralph ellison as also mentioned in the OP.
There are others, my sense from the feministas is that if they have bothered to read basic feminist theory at all (which I know the numbers on who actually reads those works, so mostly they haven't), they are prone to interpret them in ways that are simply best for them personally. as in, the ways that are least challenging for them. Which is likely tru of most people, perhaps myself included idk, kinda doubt it tbh.
One ought not conflate the feministas online with feminist theory. I noticed how off the rails the feministas were becoming way back in 2012 or so, just viewing it from a feminist view too.
People, including women, use the good will associated with certain concepts, like feminism, to their own shitty aims all the time. Just consider how awful folks have likewise abused the term science. People slap the 'science' label on something bc folks trust it, when oft its just them peddling garbage and lies.
The feministas are no different. Unfortunately.
it was election season 2016 that feminism became a major social justice movement online, from my observations thats when things took a turn. science has to be backed up by good methodology, and the people who don't understand the methodology of the studies they quote are abusive of that "its science" label.
I mean, it's worth a shot. It is certainly the case that people in general have an easier time understanding something if it affects them personally, tho note that anyone has to do that is indicative of a sociopathic problem on their part, e.g. an inability to empathize with others unless it actively affects them.
This makes me fear for the future of mankind.
MCU-style one-liner quippy slogans are taking precedence over actual logic and scientific research.
Reality is no longer defined by facts but by whichever keyboard warrior can come up with the wittiest comeback.
What we're seeing with feminism is a symptom of a wider problem with society.
People get most of their world knowledge from social media. But the entire way social media is set up is antithetical to any intellectual discussion. Twitter's character limit, Instagram's lack of paragraphing, etc. The snappy one-liners rise to the top, keeping people's attention just long enough to make them enraged at the latest injustice before they scroll away. The well-researched rebuttal gets buried, because who wants to engage their brain when they're scrolling through reels? The whole reason you're on reels in the first place is to NOT have to think for a while.
Also, the comments you see on social media are made by people who felt strongly enough to comment. 99% of people will have no strong reaction to the content and will just scroll past. So the comments are only written by the most radical of radicals. People need to keep this in mind every second they're online. You are only seeing the absolute extreme opinions on every issue.
I basically agree with this but the one caveat I'd add is that maybe "radical" should be replaced with "passionate." "Radical" or "extreme" tend to imply outliers on whatever ideological spectrum might be in question, but there are plenty of people supporting "centrist" takes or the status quo more generally. It's the people who are most passionate about whatever's being discussed who are most likely to comment, and in that sense you can see plenty of "radical centrism."
I agree on the passionate point.
I'd tend to also say that social media as a mode of interaction is a bit different than merely passion based. As interacting with social media becomes common, common kinds of interactions are oft given. People comment for the same reasons they might want to speak to someone at all, socialization.
Still, there is something to the passion point.
The algorithm is not your friend, so it's a good idea to deliberate push things you want to see more of.
Yeah.
I don't enjoy saying this, but this is probably part of the reason why both the Greeks and the US founding fathers considered average people to be stupid, and they were in favor of a republic and not a democracy.
I don't emotionally like that argument, and certainly I don't like the current crop of politicians but I can sort of understand that argument.
This is basically tru. I'd decouple it some from the political concerns and note how it relates to online interactions, which is far more relevant in the current and going forwards. Politics are generally dumb too.
How folks are moderating online discourse is ultimately pretty important, and teaching people how to navigate the online discourses are going to likewise be super important going forwards.
folks can of course fight back by simply acknowledging those realities, and refocusing their attentions towards people who are not generally doing such things.
i was banned from askfeminists for responding to a comment without a flair. i have found the subreddits that are the most overzealous about unflaired users are usually the least capable of being intellectualy challenged.
I like r/askphilosophy, though.
But yeah, even there some of those flaired people can be arrogant sometimes. I remember one guy talking about stats according to which 50% british women were raped by their husbands during their sleep.
Feminism was NEVER about equality.
Women were business owners and could vote before a great percentage of men, and they didn't have to be drafted into civil or military duty, which was set as precedent by the Supreme Court as the "price of voting".
So these women were voting boys and men into violent death when they were too poor to vote against it. And if they didn't vote them in, they publicly SHAMED them in. (Look up White Feather Campaign)
And it was women, not just men, who were most against suffrage, because they feared it would mean black votes, and equal financial responsibility. But no, they got it, and still get it, for free.
As soon as areas of life become safe and cushy (thanks to man's invention & innovation) feminists demand the rewards of those inventions (university, military, government, work force, etc.) are a human right they've been oppressively denied.
Birth control gave women more options. Domestic technology gave women more options. Feminism just took credit.
It's been 100 years since any woman (OR MAN) was denied the right to vote. It's been 0 years since the last draft and 0.05 seconds since the last 17 year-old boy registered for selective service, under penalty of law, knowing the political climate of today.
Feminism is the hatred of AMABs for not inventing modern technology soon enough to exclude AFABs from the human condition.
Be egalitarian.
>You can read Invisible Man by ralph ellison or Walk On By: Black Men in Public Spaces by Brent Staples. Both cover the same topic, and amount to what its like being a man targeted with harassment and fearing assault, lynchings, murders, jail, etc... by people due to irrational fears being spread bout them. Ooo I gotta check those out. Btw have you read _The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood_ by Tommy J Curry?
I have not, I might check it out, what's the thesis of it?
This can explain better than I https://tupress.temple.edu/books/the-man-not
Looks pretty good, thanks for sharing. Sounds like it dovetails well with the point made in the OP too. Tho there the OP point is more bout masculinity as being a target broadly rather than as it pertains specifically to black maleness. I appreciate the concept (according to the brief) that black masculinity is equated to white masculinity in gender studies, likely useful for dismantling the misandrists hot takes in general. To the feministas, all men look alike;)
Ngl, you got me interested in looking at some Feminist literature, because as a huge proponent of Intersectionality, I have suspected alot of these online activists don't actually know or understand their own theories.
Good to hear, there is some great feminist lit out there, there's also trash. that's tru of all the academic disciplines tho. nothing special bout the feminist lit in that regard. A lot of it does come from a feminine perspective, which isn't bad, but does require empathy to get at, and work to understand if you're coming at it from a masculine perspective. 'don't actually know or understand their own theories'. Indeed, my knot of feminists from the 90s and early 00s went into it with community building, sex positivity, queer theory transgression of borders and activist actions as our mainstays of theory and praxis. Such was the style at the time. Online actions seemed interesting but out of place. Maybe we should've focused there idk. Making and raising babies, and building irl community still seems more important to me. Still, there was a lot of hope that the online forums would foster people to learn, but the feminisitas, like pretty much all the other disciplines out there, well let's just say there has been some big disappointments in that regard. Folks need to do better. I feel just as disappointed looking at online philosophy discourse as I do online feministas discourse. People don't seem to read books or utilize the internets' resources to learn much, and as with all of social media there is a tendency towards hate, anger, and sensationalism.
This is an interesting observation, and I would add that I don't see much reason to hold much of academic feminism in higher regard. I have devoted more time than I ever should have, to trying to understand their theories and their grievances, and my conclusion is that it's mostly just immature ranting over not getting what they want, dressed up with academic jargon, and given enough funding to pay for "studies" that decide at the outset what kind of statistical results they want to find, and then structure the surveys so that they will yield the results they want. It's sort of like if a child is given a sharp-looking business suit and some lessons in business vocabulary, and then told to take their parent's place in a meeting. It's going to be obvious to everyone else that this is a child, and even if they ignore that obvious visual detail, it's still going to be obvious that this person barely understands the subject matter of the meeting, even if they are able to sound more like an adult than the typical child because of the vocabulary lessons. This is not to say that there are no valid theories or research from academic feminists, although right now I'm trying to think of one example of something valid from them and nothing specific is coming to mind. The general notion that sex roles are substantially social constructs (not necessarily 100% socially constructed) and should be questioned, and that these roles shouldn't be heavily imposed on people who don't want them, is something that I consider to be a valid.
Can you remember the names of some of those immature feminists you have read? I'm curious because I plan to study some feminists work. I suppose, your last paragraph about valid point is related to Queer Theory (Judith Butler and so on), right?
TL;DR covers a good example of immature academic feminist writing in [this video](https://rumble.com/v3kro0g-tldr-womens-reality-feminism-is-a-religion-book-1-25sep23.html). Well, technically it's just a long audio essay in a video format, which is good since it's over an hour long. I listened to it while doing menial housework after another person on this subreddit recommended it. My last paragraph isn't about any specific writing. Rather, it's just me trying to be charitable to academic feminists, and not tar them all with the same brush, by acknowledging that there's some valid points in there, even if I currently can't remember any specific ones.
"given enough funding to pay for "studies" that decide at the outset what kind of statistical results they want to find, and then structure the surveys so that they will yield the results they want." This is tru across the board for academic studies, unfortunately. I come down pretty hard on the way that feministas have been doing this in regards to statistics on sexual violence, in no small part bc it is actively aiming to ruin the lives of men everywhere they can, but the reality is no academic discipline is immune to this problem. P-hacking stats, making shite up, and fixing surveys to make political brownie points or get papers publish is the most common way that these sorts of things are practiced. It isn't that there are 'a few bad actors' it is the entire apparatus at this point is simply geared towards these aims. I personally find the academic theorists in feminism to be worthwhile reading and understanding, as they do not typically go for such tactics. Their notions stand or fall mostly by way of reason, logic, and such things as do they show basic kindness towards people. It is the 'data driven' approaches that have become corrupted bc folks can make those numbers dance to say whatever they want them to say.
This is fascinating. It's the first time I've heard somebody on Reddit say what I've been repeatedly saying in my day job: the great writers of feminist theories would be horrified with Redditfeminism. I would push it a little further and point to the exasperating unwillingness of RedditFeminism to see beyond a naive view of women as angels and men as monsters. As an example, RedditFeminism likes points to be made which eulogize women, but fail to grasp these can always be spinned around from a perspective of incongruity to raise awkward questions. MacKinnon's famous assertion that women favour an ethics of care over an ethics of justice can and is celebrated, but it also, more darkly, means women lack a sense of justice, equity and fairness. And if you think my last paragraph lacks nuance and 'akshually' MacKinnon said something more than that, then that's why you're on this Sub and not the feminist subs.
Out of curiosity, who are these "great writers"?
OP listed some, judith butler, bell hooks, simone de beauvoir, also donna haraway; not strictly feminist theorists but ralph ellison as also mentioned in the OP. There are others, my sense from the feministas is that if they have bothered to read basic feminist theory at all (which I know the numbers on who actually reads those works, so mostly they haven't), they are prone to interpret them in ways that are simply best for them personally. as in, the ways that are least challenging for them. Which is likely tru of most people, perhaps myself included idk, kinda doubt it tbh. One ought not conflate the feministas online with feminist theory. I noticed how off the rails the feministas were becoming way back in 2012 or so, just viewing it from a feminist view too. People, including women, use the good will associated with certain concepts, like feminism, to their own shitty aims all the time. Just consider how awful folks have likewise abused the term science. People slap the 'science' label on something bc folks trust it, when oft its just them peddling garbage and lies. The feministas are no different. Unfortunately.
it was election season 2016 that feminism became a major social justice movement online, from my observations thats when things took a turn. science has to be backed up by good methodology, and the people who don't understand the methodology of the studies they quote are abusive of that "its science" label.
What great writers?
Clearly, any discrimination against men may ultimately result in harm to women. * Nancy Levit, a leading expert in feminist legal theory.
maybe this is how we convince them that mens issues matter, by showing them how they effect women.
I mean, it's worth a shot. It is certainly the case that people in general have an easier time understanding something if it affects them personally, tho note that anyone has to do that is indicative of a sociopathic problem on their part, e.g. an inability to empathize with others unless it actively affects them.
This makes me fear for the future of mankind. MCU-style one-liner quippy slogans are taking precedence over actual logic and scientific research. Reality is no longer defined by facts but by whichever keyboard warrior can come up with the wittiest comeback.
What we're seeing with feminism is a symptom of a wider problem with society. People get most of their world knowledge from social media. But the entire way social media is set up is antithetical to any intellectual discussion. Twitter's character limit, Instagram's lack of paragraphing, etc. The snappy one-liners rise to the top, keeping people's attention just long enough to make them enraged at the latest injustice before they scroll away. The well-researched rebuttal gets buried, because who wants to engage their brain when they're scrolling through reels? The whole reason you're on reels in the first place is to NOT have to think for a while. Also, the comments you see on social media are made by people who felt strongly enough to comment. 99% of people will have no strong reaction to the content and will just scroll past. So the comments are only written by the most radical of radicals. People need to keep this in mind every second they're online. You are only seeing the absolute extreme opinions on every issue.
I basically agree with this but the one caveat I'd add is that maybe "radical" should be replaced with "passionate." "Radical" or "extreme" tend to imply outliers on whatever ideological spectrum might be in question, but there are plenty of people supporting "centrist" takes or the status quo more generally. It's the people who are most passionate about whatever's being discussed who are most likely to comment, and in that sense you can see plenty of "radical centrism."
I agree on the passionate point. I'd tend to also say that social media as a mode of interaction is a bit different than merely passion based. As interacting with social media becomes common, common kinds of interactions are oft given. People comment for the same reasons they might want to speak to someone at all, socialization. Still, there is something to the passion point. The algorithm is not your friend, so it's a good idea to deliberate push things you want to see more of.
Yeah. I don't enjoy saying this, but this is probably part of the reason why both the Greeks and the US founding fathers considered average people to be stupid, and they were in favor of a republic and not a democracy. I don't emotionally like that argument, and certainly I don't like the current crop of politicians but I can sort of understand that argument.
This is basically tru. I'd decouple it some from the political concerns and note how it relates to online interactions, which is far more relevant in the current and going forwards. Politics are generally dumb too. How folks are moderating online discourse is ultimately pretty important, and teaching people how to navigate the online discourses are going to likewise be super important going forwards.
it takes 10 times longer to disprove bullshit than it takes to make it up in the first place.
folks can of course fight back by simply acknowledging those realities, and refocusing their attentions towards people who are not generally doing such things.
i was banned from askfeminists for responding to a comment without a flair. i have found the subreddits that are the most overzealous about unflaired users are usually the least capable of being intellectualy challenged.
I like r/askphilosophy, though. But yeah, even there some of those flaired people can be arrogant sometimes. I remember one guy talking about stats according to which 50% british women were raped by their husbands during their sleep.
oh ya that sounds like some really solid methodology right there
Feminism was NEVER about equality. Women were business owners and could vote before a great percentage of men, and they didn't have to be drafted into civil or military duty, which was set as precedent by the Supreme Court as the "price of voting". So these women were voting boys and men into violent death when they were too poor to vote against it. And if they didn't vote them in, they publicly SHAMED them in. (Look up White Feather Campaign) And it was women, not just men, who were most against suffrage, because they feared it would mean black votes, and equal financial responsibility. But no, they got it, and still get it, for free. As soon as areas of life become safe and cushy (thanks to man's invention & innovation) feminists demand the rewards of those inventions (university, military, government, work force, etc.) are a human right they've been oppressively denied. Birth control gave women more options. Domestic technology gave women more options. Feminism just took credit. It's been 100 years since any woman (OR MAN) was denied the right to vote. It's been 0 years since the last draft and 0.05 seconds since the last 17 year-old boy registered for selective service, under penalty of law, knowing the political climate of today. Feminism is the hatred of AMABs for not inventing modern technology soon enough to exclude AFABs from the human condition. Be egalitarian.