This came up on my Facebook feed. I would not have pegged Time Magazine as being one to whine about how men are being excluded. Yes, we know men have problems too, but we’re trying to have our own conversation, we don’t need it derailed.
Edit: Here’s the link to the actual article. I only skimmed it but it made me twitch. http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/
Feminist: “Why are we talking about men?! Stahp!1!!”
Emma: I have no idea why people think Feminists don’t care about men! It’s so odd!
atleast Time magazine journalist have some sense instead of hoping on the feminist bandwagon
Thank god. I was honestly getting tired of all this feminist apologist nonsense. Though I guess a lot of people don’t know much about the evils feminism has done, so be sure to go to
so you can spread the info.
My jaw literally dropped reading this.
I cannot believe Time ran this.
The way she cuts to the meat of the matter in this article just blew me away:
Men must, indeed, “feel welcome to participate in the conversation” about gender issues. But very few will do so if that “conversation” amounts to being told to “shut up and listen” while women talk about the horrible things men do to women, and being labeled a misogynist for daring to point out that bad things happen to men too and that women are not always innocent victims in gender conflicts.
#YesAllWomen hastag, anyone?
A real conversation must let men talk not only about feminist-approved topics such as gender stereotypes that keep them from expressing their feelings, but about more controversial concerns: wrongful accusations of rape;
Omg, she said it….
sexual harassment policies that selectively penalize men for innocuous banter;
Omg, she fucking said it….
lack of options to avoid unwanted parenthood once conception has occurred.
Oh my FUCKING god, she FUCKING said it!!!
Such a conversation would also acknowledge that pressures on men to be successful come not only from “the patriarchy” but, often, from women as well. And it would include an honest discussion of parenthood, including many women’s reluctance to give up or share the primary caregiver role.
I’m still amazed at this…
…maybe even a little hopeful?
A world without feminist bullshit where the the issues she listed are actually addressed would actually be a great world to live in.
thank you TIME magazine
that article is actually trash
why do you think so? i honestly want to know. fair warning, i’ll probably not read your reply until tomorrow as im going to bed sorry but i really do want to know your opinon
Well first off, I’m not a huge fan of the speech in general but not for this reason. Feminism focuses on sexism faced by women, and I don’t really think that people should be surprised that a movement for women doesn’t primarily work for men. That’s not the point of it. However, many of the issues men face as a result of their gender is the result of the patriarchy, which is men being a oppressing force to women. So abolishing the patriarchy which would abolish men’s dominance over women would also eradicate many of the patriarchy-based problems that men face. I also don’t think this speech acknowledges the unique issues faced by POC in any way, which is really shitty in regards to intersectionalism, something that feminism historically has a problem with.
However, none of the things listed above completely sum up why I think this article is utter garbage.
First of all, the author says,
"Too bad they are belied by the campaign itself, which is called “HeForShe” and asks men to pledge to “take action against all forms of violence and discrimination faced by women and girls” but says nothing about problems affecting men and boys.”
Like I mentioned earlier, feminism aims to achieve equality of all genders. In our society, men are the ones who are the oppressors of women and those outside the gender binary, and while they may face some instances of prejudice due to their gender, those instances are not ingrained into our society at an institutional level, as they are not the ones who are negatively affected by the pay gap, they are not less likely to be hired based on their gender, and their reproductive rights (in regards to cis men) are not being contested by lawmakers around the globe.
An example that the author cited to establish their point that men face sexism on such an institutional basis included this little gem
"But as fathers began to fight against more covert anti-male biases in the court system, most feminists sided with mothers."
Why this author thinks that men face men face bias in the court system when it comes to child custody is beyond me. While it is true that men are less likely to get sole custody of children, that is because they are less likely to ask for it.
Statistics showing that women gain custody of their children 90% of the time reflect the fact that over the past 50 years, fathers rarely asked for custody. A study of Utah custody decisions between 1970-1993 shows that only 13% of fathers requested custody (Mason and Quirk 1997: 217).
When fathers do contest custody, studies show they win anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the time. Maccoby and Mnookin studied 930 divorce cases in California in the 1980’s and found that only 14 of these ended up before a judge. But of those cases, fathers won custody 50% of the time (Maccoby & Mnookin 1992).
Weitzman and Dixon found that in Los Angeles County alone in the 1970’s, fathers gained custody 63% of the time (Weitzman and Dixon 1986).
A study by the Massachusetts State Supreme Court Taskforce on Gender found that fathers who contest custody in Massachusetts win sole or joint physical custody more than 70% of the time (Jacobs, 1997:11).
Another study in Minneapolis found fathers winning custody in 45% of the contested cases (Polikoff, 1993:11).
Some of these studies were several years ago, when once could argue that gender roles were even more prevalent than they are today. Men do not have a problem when it comes to winning child custody. In this article, the author is arguing that men face prejudice in an issue where they actually do not. If men are trying to fight against what they are calling “bias” in the court system, then of course feminists are siding with women because that would actually give men an advantage in court.
Another issue I have with the article is this part:
“…To a large extent, as feminists sometimes point out, these attitudes stem from traditional gender norms which treat victimhood, especially at a woman’s hands, as unmanly. But today’s mainstream feminism, which regards sexual assault and domestic violence as byproducts of male power over women, tends to reinforce rather than challenge such double standards.”
In this section, the author is pointing out that instances where men have been assaulted or raped are often given less airtime on the media, and are not taken as seriously as cases where women are the victim. Now while I can’t comment on whether or not this is actually true, the sentence above bothers me because feminism does not reinforce double standards causing male victims of assault and sexual violence to get less air time, or people to be less likely to intervene when a man is the victim of abuse. As the article states, those issues stem from attitudes about gender roles and male victims that are a result of patriarchy, and feminism works to destroy the patriarchy so the author’s position doesn’t even make sense.
While it is true that men can be the victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by women, it is exceedingly rare and the motives behind women-on-man assault are not socially ingrained. More often than not, the perpetrators of abuse and violence towards men are men themselves, and these aggressive acts stem from widespread attitudes about men and gender. Feminists argue that the root of this man-on-man violence is the entitlement society teaches men, which includes entitlement to other peoples’ bodies (sexual assault), as well as the idea that men are entitled to displays of emotional outbursts and anger that women are not (abuse and violence). These things are direct result of patriarchy, which feminism fights to destroy. When men face sexual assault and violence at the hands of other men, it is a result of patriarchy backfiring on them and other men feeling entitled enough to other men’s bodies and to react to things violently that they end up hurting men. Feminism fights against patriarchy, so they are in turn fighting the system that leads to this type of entitlement and further down the line, sexual assault and violence.
On to the next delightful paragraph.
“Just in the past few days, many feminist commentators have taken great umbrage at suggestions that soccer star Hope Solo, currently facing charges for assaulting her sister and teenage nephew, deserves similar censure to football player Ray Rice, who was caught on video striking his fiancée. Their argument boils down to the assertion that violence by men toward their female partners shouldbe singled out because it’s a bigger problem than female violence toward family members. Meanwhile, in Watson’s native England, activists from women’s organizations recently blamed the shortage of services for abused women on efforts to accommodate abused men (despite the fact that, as Guardian columnist and blogger Ally Fogg demonstrated, even the lowest estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence against men suggest that male victims are far less likely than women to get help).”
My biggest issue with this is the ridiculous “summary” the author gives of her sources here. The first article that she hyperlinks under the words “feminist commentators” does make the point that men who assault their partners should be singled out. What the author neglects to mention is that the two articles’ authors do not say that Solo should not be benched because of these charges, if not let go like one would be led to believe (you can read them both, I kept in the hyperlinks for that purpose). Later on in the paragraph, the article about women’s shelters that the author links to does not blame “efforts to accommodate men” for a lack of abused women’s resources, but because those “efforts” have involved the closing of women’s shelters because they do not accommodate men. There is no reason that women’s shelters, where the victims have primarily been abused by men, should have to live by them side-by-side. This can be traumatic for the women seeking refuge and can lead to women avoiding help. Since men face domestic violence at a much lower rate than women, it is logical that there be more women’s-only shelters. All these sources are misleading and only included to give the impression of credibility, while the author banks on the probability that readers will not even bother to glance at the links.
Once again, in the next paragraph, the author continues with her half hazard inclusion of sources that she is either guessing that her audience will not read, or that she only skimmed through herself, and pairs it with a vast oversimplification of complex issues.
“Watson deserves credit for wanting to end the idea that “fighting for women’s rights [is] synonymous with man-hating.” But she cannot do that if she treats such notions only as unfair stereotypes. How about addressing this message to feminists who complain about being “asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings” when talking about misogyny — for instance, not to generalize about all men as oppressors? Or to those who argue that “Kill all men” mugs and “I bathe in male tears” T-shirts are a great way to celebrate women’s empowerment and separate the “cool dudes” who get the joke from the “dumb bros”? Or to those who accuse a feminist woman of “victim-blaming” for defending her son against a sexual assault accusation — even one of which he is eventually cleared?”
The idea that feminism is “man-hating” is not a new one. It’s a term that has been thrown around since the days of suffragettes, paired along with “ugly” and “lesbian”. The author argues that since women complain about having to cater to men in their discussion of misogyny, that feminism isn’t doing a great job with respecting men. The problem with this line of thinking is that feminism shouldn’t have to cater to men. If I say that I hate it when dogs pee on the floor, no one instantly corrects me to tell me that not all dogs pee on the floor. The same applies to discussions about rape, assault, and misogyny. The perpetrators of all those things are overwhelmingly male, and if one uses pronouns typically associated with men in a discussion, this does not mean that that person thinks that all men have raped someone in their lifetime. Adding the word “most” as a clarifier doesn’t necessarily suddenly make the meaning of what feminists are saying – however, the expectation does hurt women’s discussions because suddenly they have to be concerned about clarifying the meaning about everything they say in order to ensure that a man doesn’t get his feelings hurt. As the author in the linked article states, “This type of semantic squabbling is a very effective way of getting women to shut up.” In fact, before I go on anymore about this part of the passage, I think that the author of the linked article does a great job saying what I am trying to say and you might as well just read that instead of me continuing on about that particular part.
That “horrible feminist” that the author alludes to in the last sentence that “accuses” a woman of victim blaming wrote this in their article:
“Don’t misunderstand me — generally speaking, I agree with her that this process sounds dodgy (I will explain that more in depth in a minute). But I also find it an extremely problematic illustration of rape culture that from the get-go, Grossman fingers “jealousy and revenge … motivating a spurned young ex-lover” instead of considering the possibility that her child may actually have actually forced nonconsensual sex upon his accuser. Crazy idea, right?! Such arguments prey on the victim-blaming beliefs that spiteful women are going after innocent sons — a knee jerk reaction that feeds into the lie that women falsely accuse men of rape all the time. They don’t. The reality is that only two to eight percent of reported rapes are false. You can read a more in-depth piece about this subject over at Slate. “
I also read the original letter in which the mother was victim blaming. The above paragraph accurately depicts the tone of the letter, and also acknowledges that the mother had a right to be upset with the school’s alleged treatment of her son.
Annnnnnnd on to the next part:
Men must, indeed, “feel welcome to participate in the conversation” about gender issues. But very few will do so if that “conversation” amounts to being told to “shut up and listen” while women talk about the horrible things men do to women, and being labeled a misogynist for daring to point out that bad things happen to men too and that women are not always innocent victims in gender conflicts. A real conversation must let men talk not only about feminist-approved topics such as gender stereotypes that keep them from expressing their feelings, but about more controversial concerns: wrongful accusations of rape; sexual harassment policies that selectively penalize men for innocuous banter; lack of options to avoid unwanted parenthood once conception has occurred. Such a conversation would also acknowledge that pressures on men to be successful come not only from “the patriarchy” but, often, from women as well. And it would include an honest discussion of parenthood, including many women’s reluctance to give up or share the primary caregiver role.
Okay, so I have a huge issue with this part of the article. Why is it so hard for men to listen to women’s experiences when it comes to misogyny? Feminism is a movement for women to achieve equality. When women are talking about misogyny they have experienced from other men, it is of the upmost importance that men listen to them. As a man, one does not undergo the same experiences that women do by the hands of sexism and expecting to be able to contribute equally in discussions about issues that affect women is ridiculous. An example I heard long ago that I can’t place but would love if someone gave me something to link back to was a post I saw on here. It essentially stated that the poster was not an astronaut, and nor were they particularly educated on space or space travel. If someone had asked them their opinion on funding another trip to the moon in a discussion about space travel, they certainly had the right to an opinion. However, whether or not that opinion contributed anything valuable to the conversation about moon landings in comparison to people who work at NASA was negligible. Why? Because that person did not have the background necessary to talk about the particular issues that come with space travel, and could not talk on that issue as someone who was relevant to the conversation and they would have almost certainly been better off listening to the people who were qualified to speak on the subject than just mindlessly throwing their opinion out into the room. The same goes for women. They are the ones who experience misogyny and know how it affects them. Men who speak on women’s issues are discussing it through a veil of privilege. I’m not saying that there is not time and place for men to discuss women’s issues, but they need to understand that their view is much less relevant than the views of women.
In regards to the issues that the article lists, such as sexual assault on men, etc, men need to recognize that the time and place to discuss those issues is NOT when women are discussing the sexual assault they face at the hands of men. Once again, to quote a post I saw floating around my dash a while back, “”Men experience sexual assault” is a full sentence. If you need to add the “too”, you are derailing the conversation and silencing women.”
Wow. This entire thing got wayyyy longer than expected. I’m gonna finish up this last bit and head off to bed.
It goes without saying that these are “First World problems.” In far too many countries around the world, women still lack basic rights and patriarchy remains very real (though it is worth noting that even in those places, men and boys often have to deal with gender-specific hardships, from forced recruitment into war to mass violence that singles out males). But in the industrial democracies of North America and Europe, the revolution in women’s rights over the past century has been a stunning success — and, while there is still work to be done, it must include the other side of that revolution. Not “he for she,” but “She and he for us.”
Saying that the issues that feminists in the United States and other countries discuss at large are “first world problems” dismisses the fact that they are the symptoms of a larger issue. The patriarchy exists in the US and exists in other countries. There is no “oppression Olympics” that women compete in to see who’s oppression is worse at the hands of patriarchy. While women in the US may face different issues than women elsewhere, they still are a result of men having superiority to women and not treating women as equals. Feminism aims to change that. Insisting that feminism cater to men and work to change the issues that men face not only ignores the root of those issues, but assumes a different power structure in which women and men have equal power to change things in society. Derailing the conversation about how men face problems too does nothing to advance feminism, and in essence results in less progress being made to eradicate the issues men claim they are not receiving equal attention for. This article is essentially arguing that feminism should be catering to men more, and turns the reality of oppression into some sort of contest of who needs what support. At its very essence, feminism isn’t and shouldn’t be about helping men. The entire society already caters to them – working solely towards fixing women’s issues doesn’t mean that “HeForShe” is necessarily bad for men, like this author suggests, but that it doesn’t prioritize them.
And since I can’t really write conclusions, I’m just gonna say that all that ^^^^^ is why I think that article is trash.
Also pardon the wonky formatting, I started writing this in Word after I realized how long it was getting.