Here is one such question: the very notion of “unconsciously hating” or being an oppressor, strikes many as counter-intuitive. I think part of why radical feminism is still “radical” is because the various descriptions and statements we hear from it are often expressed as if everyone was intimately familiar with the underlying assumptions and definitions used. An obvious example is “all men hate all women.” I’m wondering what radical feminists, if interested in convincing us about the errors of our mainstream ways, really think they are going to accomplish by coming out with unqualified absolute statements such as this (which I see fairly frequently), which tend to antagonize people. I find myself receptive to many radical ideas, but typically much more so when expressed sympathetically towards its (nonradical) audience. Maybe if we looked at a specific example of the alleged universal hatred of women by men I would be more confident where radical feminism is coming from.

regards,
Chris

Chris

The confusion you remark upon, that men seem kind to women on a daily basis, and don’t act like creatures of hate, is a fundamental one. The key is to think of everything as relative, and to understand that sometimes we act like human beings, members of a common humanity that we all share that is a gender-neutral reality, and sometimes we act like manly men, filling whatever roles we think we understand about how to act like a man in this man’s world.

A lot of the ways of being manly require you to reject, if not despise and hold in contempt, various customs we regard as feminine. It’s OK for women to act that way, or like these things, but not us. Sometimes, in extreme but shockingly common cases, feminine attributes can include such once-common virtues as truth, beauty, justice and other things that most people would see as gender-neutral and unambiguously good, but which the manly man laughs at and holds in contempt in order to extend his dominion over those weaker than he.

Feminists have done a lot of excellent work at identifying and understanding what is feminine behavior, rather than gender-neutral human behavior, and have done some work identifying the obstacles male behavior places in their quest to free themselves from gender-based oppression. Men have done some work on trying to understand what is masculine behavior and what is human behavior, but much less, and most of it in terms of feminist viewpoints.

Like John Stoltenberg, I refuse outright to be a man anymore. Since everything about being a man that isn’t normally shared by women as a gender-neutral virtue is all activity designed to increase my more negative qualities, I’m done with it.

The big mistake I used to be afraid of about rejecting masculinity was thinking that rejecting masculinity was the same as embracing femininity. Knowing that women who aspire to free themselves from male oppression also need to free themselves from the need to please men by acting in artificial ways we call feminine cleared this up for me. There’s actually a third way, a more aspirational ambition that I have modeled in place of being manly or girly. And that’s being a human being, seeing all people in terms of our shared humanity first, and regarding gender, race, opinions, and customs as all interesting details that are secondary to the essential humanity we all share.

Last, reading radical feminism has also shown me that the highest and best parts of human nature are mostly considered manly virtues, because men regard women with unconscious yet potent contempt, and see these virtues as masculine only, such as a certain amount of assertiveness which you could label aggression if you wanted. Men, unlike women, have little work to do in order to cultivate their best side, since it’s always been considered a man’s nature to be virtuous, and a woman’s nature to be weak.

New to this site, and as someone (male) who doesn’t (yet?) feel comfortable with the points of view expressed above, I have some rather basic questions, if that’s OK. I have tended to regard radical feminism as misguided, and itself a dehumanizing force. However, I’m willing to give it another try. If you aren’t already offended by my words (I am only in favor of questioning ideas, and bear no ill feelings towards anyone based on their views,) I would welcome any feedback on the below.

Let me begin with some mundane everyday observations, if I might. While I grant one never has to look to far to observe jerky, selfish men in action, I also see example after example in everyday life of men being kind towards women. Whether it’s a women who’s dropped her grocery bag, or who needs help with opening the door, or needing a hand lifting a baby stroller off the trolley, nine times out of ten I see not just women, but men spontaneously stepping in, offering their help and doing the right thing. We may argue that things aren’t always as they seem, and deconstructing such acts may well result in our questioning our intuitive beliefs. But in the final analysis, are such everyday acts described above more akin to kindness or hatred? (Would it be kinder not to step in and help in such situations?) Thus there appears to many of us (non radical feminists, that is) an unsettling rift between evident reality, and what we read from radical feminists. Either that, or we must be doing some serious misinterpreting, (a possibility I’m perfectly open to.) For it’s not self-evident – to me at least – such everyday observations of apparent kindness can be reconciled with the view of men as creatures of hate.

As another example, let’s look at “manliness.” Sure, some of that concept unpleasantly conjures up chauvinism, even misogyny, or men pathetically trying to prove their manhood in obnoxious ways. But just how much so? Manliness is often equated with “aggressiveness.” If true, aggressiveness seems (to me and many others) a neutral concept in itself, and it’s potential for oppression depends on how it’s used, much like, say, an automobile. How much “manliness” must a man give up to be a nice guy (non women- hating man)? Indeed, are any parts of “manliness” worth salvaging? If some women claim to like “manliness,” are they automatically and of necessity mistaken if they believe it’s not harmful to them?

These are just a few of the questions I have had over the years I’ve been hoping to ask of radical feminism. I hope these questions are taken not just as criticisms, but as trying to glean insight and understand radical feminism a bit better than I do now.

Thank you,

Chris

Chris

YES.

All of the traits of any human that we assign to each sex belong equally to all humans. … embrace mutual humanity in the place of these externally-imposed cultural roles.

EXACTLY. I really just could not agree more with this post.

I’m currently reading “The Mismeasure of Woman” and being delighted and strengthened by how it proves that gender is false. I’ve known this by simple logic; but seeing how science confirms it makes me feel more able to express these things to people who currently believe in gender.