![]() Ii) Male anger is threatening and potentially violent in reality, especially if (we assume) they are a privileged group and therefore have the capacity for political violence I) Men have a responsibility to work through their own pain ![]() How do we balance these four difficulties: Men's Lib, which as far as I can see is really a subsidiary of TwoXChromsomes.)Īt the same time we know that patriarchal society at large wants men to man up and stop complaining, go back to being useful disposable wage slaves, emotionally dead inside.because the reward is the (false) promise of a good submissive woman, wealth, power, respect, success, glory! When anger at female/femme abusers and the perpetuation of traditional gender roles by women always entails a deterioration into either brutish violence or calculated, long-term political violence (reactionary politics) inevitably this means many feminists feel the only spaces which can be trusted to exist are ones vetted, administrated and monitored by feminists. Hell we know that the media and press censored them, we know the institutions did.Īs far as I can see the issue is that the moment that the reasoning is processed outside of 'male privilege' (defined as 'men have it better systemically than women because they are the original political and legal subject/agent') the movement CAN become reactionary. And so I dare say that a lot of radical feminist views on men at the time would, if the internet existed, have been censored and shut down for being angry. On that basis, anger expressed even verbally can always become destructive.Īt the same time, total stifling of pain fails to allow the human to achieve catharsis, there can be no peaceful resolution to the internal conflict, and we accept that The Personal is Political so the baggage we carry in our personal lives fast becomes a systemic issue without address. I renounce using men's issues as justification for violence against women and rape, death threats, and it is part of why I abandoned the A Voice For Men network which legitimised unabashed anger and harassment of feminists in lieu of Warren Farrell's mild-mannered diplomacy. I will accept that there will always be a fear of real physical violence against women by angry men. Ii) Potentially overtaken by reactionary antifeminism-which many feminists regard as political/structural/institutional violence even if it only begins as rhetoric. Toxicity I think can be defined as follows: Regardless, many feminists try to ban these spaces before they grow on the basis they decide they are too toxic. Stewing in it is only destroying us." We have seen this process being discussed and critiqued by thinkers such as bell hooks and the various feminist anthologies. Eventually thought leaders came along shortly before the 3rd wave and said "enough, we must move toward focussing on ourselves and our own empowerment, autonomy, liberation, a transformation of our communities in defiance of oppressive value systems, rather than this anger towards the oppressor-class which is only a symptom of the problem of patriarchy. I think it is fair to say that the 2nd wave was extremely angry in particular, *and yet that did not invalidate women's oppression*. They are mostly laypeople with varying degrees of experience, some of course only young undergraduate men, and prone to getting lost in the same mire of anger and hate as the Women's Lib movement. ![]() Without the backing of feminism (which is MASSIVE in human rights movements, see the post on relative institutional authority) they are small. MRAs call this process 'red pill rage' of course the Red Pill metaphor has multiple meanings, some outright pseudoscientific but at its heart it is expressing anger from a male-centred i.e. ![]() Sometimes these *are* victims of female/woman abusers, rapists, manipulators, authority figures, etc. By processing I mean, a gradual emotional catharsis about the nature of sexism, the gender binary, oppressive traditional gender roles, ways they have perpetuated it, ways their family, friends and acquaintances have, ways they are ingrained into culture, ways in which they and them have been victimised by them. There exist spaces for men's issues which are processing the discussion. I'm going to assume that it's men's responsibility to promote men's issues rather than for feminism to do so in this. That they are 'not toxic' (shall attempt to define this below) That they do it away from women's spaces or conversations about women's issues. It's quite common for there to be two conditions for a men's space to not be deplatformed, or at least boycotted and criticised, by feminists. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |