Now for the record, I've never really liked any of the books we read in high school. But the ones that I hated the most were usually the "feminist" books. "Beloved", "Their Eyes Were Watching God", "The Awakening"- I hated ALL of them.
But I think it's mostly because of the fact that, to me, they seemed to be more of bashing men as a whole then being "feminist".
IIN that I don't like a lot of feminist literature for this reason?
But I think it's mostly because of the fact that, to me, they seemed to be more of bashing men as a whole then being "feminist".
IIN that I don't like a lot of feminist literature for this reason?
I'm just saying.
I'm familiar with at least one of those pieces of literature. Nothing, even oppression, will justify certain selfishness in my mind. I refuse to believe that it is in any way ethical to apply moral standards to men but not to apply the same to females.
Meh. To me, the concept of feminism revolves around the concept, that women should be free to chose, not that selfishness and lack of care for seemingly archaic obligations is in any way acceptable. If it's bashing men, or commending women for doing something that a man would be condemned for doing or vice versa, then to hell with it. That said, many feminists share my mentality, so I don't expect that all feminist literature "bashes men"...
Part of me just doesn't think I've read enough feminist literature... maybe it's just the ones that the teachers picked for us to read in high school were the only ones that bashed men and all the other typical feminist stuff really isn't like that.
I enjoy reading about society's effects and expectations of women... and to the reader, no that does not mean that I don't also care to read about society's effects and expectations of men either... But I enjoy reading literature that is empowering to females and encourages females to take control of their lives rather than being pitiful as many of these literary works portray them to be, or giving up all of your power to men ("I need a man to take care of me!"). I'm not saying that I enjoy literature that bashes men, empowering women is not the same as bashing men in any respect unless it is given that trait by the author, but I have read many articles and blogs that send the messages that I like, that women NEED to hear, which is "Hey, ladies, you got your freedom, now take control of your lives!".
Anywho, most girlies are told to do all of the fun stuff you want to do before you become a Mommy, because you don't get the chance to live freely until all of the kiddies are grown and out. I thought that was common fucking sense, she broke the rules!
How to be a Woman by Caitlin Moran?
I thought it was impossible to dislike these books.
My favourite is Herland. It deserves to be as famous as Brave New World and probably would have been had it not been written when it was. The Female Man is pretty good as well. My female friends would recommend Margaret Attwood and Ursula Le Guin as writers but, for some reason, they didn't appeal to me as a male.
But I'm gunna check out what you suggested. I've been looking for something new to read recently.
Actually, given where we live, I could hide my copy somewhere about town for you and send you on a treasure hunt. :P
The way I saw it, women were treated as inferior to men, thus a lot of them held some spite to the male race. I really don't believe that the books were bashing men however, but rather describing the situations of women.
Besides, in "Their Eyes Were Watching God" Janie meets Teacake who treats her like a Queen and with respect. So there really isn't any bashing going on in there.
As for "The Awakening" well the main character was just glad that her husband died is all, but wouldn't you be to if you were in her shoes?
I don't view feminist novels as bashing men,I'm sure some do though. But I think that most feminist novels just describe the situations of women, and how inferior they were treated. It isn't an attack on the male race, it is a simple observation on the lives of women.
By the way, if you want to read a novel, or two, in which men aren't attacked, then read "A Room of One's Own" or, one of my favorite novels, "Herland."
Here's my point - if your only exposure to a complicated philosophical doctrine is only through having conversations with acquaintances or friends, you are not in a position to say anything like "most feminism is about hating males", because that is factually incorrect. Any "feminist" who hates men and treats women as superior has absolutely no idea what the basic tenets of feminism are.
You could easily say "most women I've spoken to who claim to be feminists hate males", but that's called "anecdotal evidence", and it's an invalid source of information. It doesn't discredit the movement in the slightest, only the people you've spoken to about it.
An example - every anarchist I have ever spoken to was a complete idiot. Some of them literally thought that if we dismantled the government today, tomorrow would be a better day. I've met some that thought terrorism was a viable means for this, even some anarchist lecturers have implied this! But it would obviously be daft to say something like "anarchism is about terrorism" based on those people, so I informed myself instead. I still don't agree with the basic principles of anarchism, but I made the judgment independently of the people who had no idea what they were talking about.
This is why people thumb you down and don't take the time to respond. Because we know you haven't read the philosophy, so we know you're unfamiliar with its actual principles apart from what you've heard from third parties. It's not because we let our "emotions cloud our logic", it's because there's no point in debating someone about anarchism when they think anarchism = terrorism. There's no point in seriously debating evolution with someone who thinks evolution means monkeys and humans are literally cousins, especially when they won't accept that they might be uninformed about the subject. And there's no point in debating someone about feminism when they think "most feminism is about hating males and treating females superior".
I apologize for the rant.
When I say most feminism, I meant most feminists. Feminism itself was about equality.
Well what else can I say if there is no evidence to show about the matter other than anecdotal evidence? I would copy and paste the screenshots, but they deleted the posts and blocked me from each page for asking if they're for financial abortion for men.
I am not saying feminism is about hating men, and if I did I made a mistake, what I meant to say was that most feminists are about special treatment and superiority. This site alone has shown this, if anything.
Like I said, I don't think feminism is wrong, I think feminists are, or ones that claim themselves to be feminists.
You have misunderstood what it is I was trying to say. Feminism isn't about superiority, feminists (or ones claiming to be feminists) do.
I myself agree with feminism, that is if feminism is about complete, unconditional equality.
I have always been about equality, pure equality, the only problem is that when you state the equalities that come with equality, a lot of feminists go crazy.
For the most part, I believe that these feminists you speak of truly intend to "bring men down a notch". From my studies, part of the hatred for men stems from overly publicized domestic violence cases, misrepresented statistics (or in other words, the reader did not have an accurate understanding of how the statistics were made) and the growing rate of struggling single Mother homes. No matter what, there will always be a reason for them to hate men until they receive a further education of what true feminism is.
Personally, I see their philosophy as a paradox.
"I deserve rights, freedom and equality, I am an independent women, but men should treat me like a porcelain doll because I am incapable of making responsible decisions and accepting the consequences of my actions, therefore MEN suck".
Funny how many of the struggling singke Mother statistics show strong correlation with unwed mother statistics. You chose to have a man who would not legally commit to you father your child and now it's a shock that he's left you? Oh those horrible men.
From a perspective of a feminist, those women make us all look weak and incapable of handling ourselves. That's freedom, they know the risks of what they do and blame men for it anyway...
You may hate that brand of feminism because it is popular, unopposed, and bashes men (you). I hate it because it only reinforces the fact that women are still at the mercy of men and can't be anything other than victims. Me.
Yes, feminism is about getting choice, their choice. They usually don't care or even like when males get to have choice. For example, the majority of feminists I have talked to respectfully before just branding them as feminists looking for special treatment or man hater, I ask if they are for financial abortion in a way that a woman still gets to choose if she gives brith to the child (full control of her body and future), and males get to choose if he'll be a father or not (his choice for his future). When I ask the majority of feminists this, they either call me sexist or ignore answering the question all together, regardless of it being the main question asked.
The original feminism I am all for, equal treatment completely, but today's feminism betrays yesterday's feminism.
Yes, I agree, although domestic violence studies show that women are 40% of the victimizers. Regardless of that, we only hear about male victimizers in domestic abuse cases. We need to start putting the right ammount of blame on women for their actions just like we do men.
That paradox thing, I agree with. Unfortunatly, society tries to help that paradox look like a good way to run, which is terrible.
I completely agree, women aren't paying close enough attention to the men they are having sex with to see if they are ready to be fathers or ever will be ready to be fathers, yet falls pregnant anyway, then they get shocked when he leaves. They think that just by having a child with someone means that someone is going to change completely at the snap of a finger.
It depends, although you listed some reasons why I do hate the feminism brand. I dislike it because in this struggle for equality, only they are being heard aswell.
Yes, I think the financial abortion idea would be the best one for our species in terms of reproduction rights and the population itself. I also think that child benefits shouldn't be offered unless the man did sign the contract to be the father, then something had happened to him when he was the one bringing home the money. Although, I don't think child benefits should be given to the women that have children when they knew they won't have a father to support the child and she doesn't either.
This way, slowly but surely, people only ready to commit to being a parent will want to have children, because without getting money left and right from everywhere just for having a fatherless children, women would be more careful in who they have a child with, which would make them more careful with men in terms of falling pregnant. I think it would solve our population problem aswell.
I call it the rape/domestic violence network.
Every women is a rape victim or a domestic abuse victim, or their man is a cheater, or SOMETHING melodramatic happens to them to the point where you just have to say "...Really?"
My favorite example of this was when Lifetime had on a series called "The Client List", which was basically about Jennifer Love Hewitt being a prostitute. Of course, they never really say she's a prostitute, but that's what she basically is. And they advertised that shit like crazy on Lifetime. LIFETIME: THE CHANNEL FOR WOMEN, EVERYBODY! God, I swear these channels think too highly of themselves... "the channel for women", it's just so stupid, I can't even get mad about it.
Oh, wait...damn you, Legend of Korra!
I would say I support equal rights for women, as I support equal rights for men, children, queers, black brown purple alien cow midgets. Equal rights means everyone, we're all just humans.
But modern feminists have the biggest stick up their asses that I have ever seen.
But this post isn't even about feminist issues it's about feminist writers.
This is the one NeuroNeptunian and I were talking about.
http://therottenlittlegirls.com/2009/02/23/debunking-the-pms-myth/
That group does some ridiculous stuff.
http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/
And this one more recently.
I did remember I got one feminist book in college that was pretty good, called The Beauty Myth.
I can easily see how anyone would be taken aback by feminism upon initial research, many mainstream feminist groups are built on ideals like "PMS is a myth that makes women look weak", and testicles are a myth too, that's why men cry when they are kicked. Next?
That's because they're all ugly lesbians.
I did like Girl Meets Boy by Ali Smith. And Greg Rucka's Batwoman and Wonderwoman Hiketeia are MASTERPIECES
Some humor never kills ya.