Reddit reviews Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics
We found 23 Reddit comments about Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Used Book in Good Condition
I have no clue how you are dating someone who has fundamental values and beliefs that are so divergent from your own. It just doesn't make any sense to me. My boyfriend and I argue from time to time about facets or aspects of feminism, but never whether it is justified or needed. We'd never have even started dating if we didn't share such basic views and understandings about society and culture.
I've tried dating even semi-conservative guys in the past, and to me it might as well have been Rush Limbaugh. I'm an above-average political and opinionated person, to be fair, but I still don't get how anyone can think they could possibly "reconcile" such adamant misogyny with a loving, healthy relationship.
I'll agree with your boyfriend on one thing. That "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" shit is trite and and does try to over-classify men and women. True, some of the stuff about communication may resonate with you, but the philosophical foundation upon which stuff like that is written is unintelligent and decidedly antifeminist.
When people come to Reddit with boyfriend or girlfriend problems, I usually advocate just working things out, but this is one of the rare occasions in which I will say it's best to just give up. He is a close-minded, controlling, rude human being and needs to realize how his regressive worldview can and will negatively affect his relationships. Maybe leave him a copy of this book on your way out the door and hope he doesn't burn it.
But Julie! I thought "Feminism is for Everybody"?
>When anything true but damning about men as a class comes up, such as they do less childcare and housework, and are paid more than women, there will likely be a twee little intervention, such as 'present company accepted', or 'Nigel is OK though'.
>In recent years, the cry of 'we need more men in feminism'. and 'we must include men' has been creeping in. To counter the accusations of man-hating that feminists like me face all the time, many of the more liberal, 'fun' feminists' bend over backwards to tell men that feminism will fail without their intervention. But the whole point of the women's liberation movement is that is challenges and seeks to overthrow male supremacy, and to liberate women from the shackles of patriarchy. it goes without saying that most men will take exception to this. We wish to remove the privilege they are granted at birth. Feminism is a threat to men, and so it should be.
Drops the mic
Bell Hooks, a fantastic feminist author, seems to think so.
http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Is-Everybody-Passionate-Politics/dp/0896086283
I suggest giving this a read!
I think you're coming into this with a lot of radical views about what constitutes a feminist.
How do you date a feminist? The same way you date anyone else: be a decent Human Being with an interesting personality.
I'm a feminist and I'm a dude and I date when I can be bothered, and I can earnestly say I've never been accused of flaunting my privilege or a scumbag sexist.
I'm not sure what you've read that equates feminism with a lack of romance, but it sounds like a pretty shitty brand of 'feminism' to me. I would suggest checking out an author like bell hooks if you are interested in learning about actual feminism and not whatever bizarre sect you seem to have come across.
>To be a feminist means that you are taking the stance that the problems faced by women today are greater than problems faced by men...
I would like to start by saying that nothing in my reply is intended to sound hostile, bitter, or dismissive. That said, your attitude about feminism is representative of an extremely biased approach to understanding the issues feminists seek to address. It is indicative of a general misunderstanding of the basic ideas and (in my mind, more importantly) terminology of feminist theory.
To start with, if you can honestly find me an academically or socially recognized feminist who would truthfully assert that women should be in control and men should not, then I would be absolutely aghast. I'm not talking about some blogger or some crazy in the local paper; I'm talking about someone whose studies, writings, and or activist work has influenced a substantial portion of people identifying as feminists. Feminists do not seek to elevate women to a social or political position anywhere but equal to men. I think this common misconception stems from a grave misunderstanding of concepts/terms such as "privilege" and "patriarchy" as well as a simple judgement based on the roots of the name "Feminism" itself.
>To say men have no problems is to minimize issues that are present in the other sex...
I have never heard any learned feminist argue that in any way. If you think that the argument that women face more adversity in society is the same as saying that men face no problems then you have woefully misinterpreted the statement. If you want to play the oppression Olympics to determine who has it worse, well I suppose that's your prerogative.
What I see in your comment is a quite common issue people exhibit when confronted with feminism: a cursory examination of the name and basic definition (often flawed) is enough to convince you (not you necessarily) that feminists are antagonistic to men both as a group and individually. In reality, while feminism began as a way to give political voice to women completely without power, it has evolved into a complex and diverse school of philosophy which has as its most common element the attempt to understand social problems related to and constructed upon gender. While the most common inequalities feminists address are those that harm women, feminists have also worked to study social issues adversely affecting men. This is because, in typical feminist theory, the root causes of female social issues also adversely affect men.
For example, feminists often talk about "gender roles". What is a gender role? A gender role is a quality or act expected of someone, from birth and throughout their life, assigned to them on the basis of the gender they are assigned at birth. Gender roles that typically adversely affect women: expectations of maternal/parenting instincts, femininity, housewife roles, submissiveness. What separates a gender role from a biological quality is that, whereas a biological trait is something that may be common to a certain group (but often varies heavily within that group), a role is a social construct that denies the validity of a lifestyle not lived within that role. Consequences of breaking from one's role can range from social shaming to (in some places) outright discrimination and violence. Female gender roles harm women because they force our attitudes to condemn women who do not act/appear to act as their roles would have you believe. The flip-side to this in feminism (that feminist detractors ignore) is that men are also have expected roles. Roles such as "the provider", aloofness, strength, and masculinity. These roles provide the basis for social issues that negatively impact men: Men shouldn't hang around children because they shouldn't exhibit any qualities that seem "maternal", Men aren't good candidates for romantic relationships unless they posses material wealth, etc. As should be obvious, the same root causes of female inequality are problems for men as well!
>...only WOMEN face REAL problems, and ONLY men cause them.
As I mentioned earlier, one of the problems I think many people have with feminism comes from a profound misunderstanding of its terminology. Words/Phrases like "Male Privilege" and "Patriarchy" seem to trigger the idea that feminism means "MALES BAD. FEMALES GOOD". This is absolutely not the case. I'll admit, with just a superficial observation, the words themselves don't seem to exactly praise men (whether the words themselves and the feelings they elicit should be renamed is another argument entirely). First, Privilege refers to the idea that certain people, due to existing social prejudices deeply ingrained into every single person in that society, benefit from qualities or conditions that they had no control over. "The Patriarchy" refers to a social system by which the difference between power and no power is guided by the distinction between masculinity and femininity. Notice that it is not the distinction between men and women but the gender roles mentioned earlier: masculinity and femininity. The concept of a patriarchy is that it is circular: The patriarchy encourages that men behave in a masculine way and women in a feminine way, then those who best exhibit masculine traits overwhelmingly occupy the positions of power and influence, where they then serve as social "proof" that masculinity in males is a good thing, beginning the cycle over again. As you can see from this simple overview, feminism does not seek to blame each and every single man for being a man. It seeks to examine the fundamental forces that guide our social interactions, which existed long before any currently living person and (likely) will continue in the future. There is no "evil board of men" that feminists think are turning all the world's men into insufferable misogynists; feminism merely believes that the current system of social dynamics favors the masculine, which overwhelmingly is a trait that is forced into men. This should also be obvious: who represent the vast majority of politicians, CEOs, wealthy and/or influential people? By and large, men. Not because men are inherently evil but because society expects men to do these things, so they do. We hammer it heavily into our children (though more passively than the hammer allegory might suggest).
In summary:
-No, feminists do not think men face no problems in society.
-Feminists do think that men's social issues stem from the same root causes as those of women.
-Feminism (as widely practiced) is about studying and hopefully eliminating the forces oppressing both women and men.
-Feminists do not think all men are evil, they take issue with the idea that society dictates that all men must be X and all women must be Y, and then society determines that X is the best quality of leadership/influence. This is called patriarchy.
I don't take issue simply with your rejection of Feminism, but several statements in your response indicate that your analysis of feminism has been cursory, at best. I highly recommend Feminism is for Everybody, by Bell Hooks for a simple, short overview. I apologize for the length of this comment, I wrote it not just to you but to anyone for whom Feminism seems like dark magic. Additionally, the issues I had with your comment weren't issues that can be addressed usefully with just a quick note. These are complex issues and thus require more than a few sentences.
TL;DR, The 57 on Heinz ketchup bottles refers to the number of different types of pickles the company once sold.
About the term, in the words of the Dalai Lama: "I call myself a feminist. Isn't that what you call someone who fights for women's rights?"
A good primer is bell hooks's Feminism is for Everybody. Enjoy!
> And Anita would have my respect if she talked about gender generalizations for both genders than just women. It's not Gamers Against Bigotry for her; let's be real, it's Gamers against Bigotry against Women. But somehow even though gamers are primarily men, they don't care if it does not include them.
Heya so this is a super-duper common misconception about feminism that I'll try to call out without getting too tl'dr: Feminism is not exclusively about women, but it is (necessarily) primarily about women. Why? Because the mere fact that we even have "men issues" vs "women issues" to talk about is a directly result of the historical (and ongoing) mistreatment of women. Are men affected by this divide? Of course they are. The vast, overwhelming majority of (not made up) feminists acknowledge this. We should all be interested in dealing with this problem! But we don't call it "egalitarianism", we call it "feminism" for the simple reason that whatever discrimination men face (compared to women) exists only because of an even bigger problem women face (or used to face).
Again, this is super-condensed but I highly recommend this book if you are even the least bit interested in what feminism actually deals with (as opposed to the popular assumptions about it).
....
Having said all that, I cannot wrap my mind around what exactly Anita Sarkeesian would talk about in regards to men specific issues in gaming... There are a few genuine problems specific to men (even middle-class 1st world white men) in the real, outside world but hell if I can think of a single way being a man puts you at any sort of disadvantage in the gaming community of all things.
If you want to talk about bigotry in gaming, you have to talk about gender-based bigotry, and if you want to talk about genter-based bigotry in gaming, how could you possibly not talk about women ???
No, it's nothing like that, because the creation of feminist thought and feminist organizing efforts are not zero-sum games like lifeboat capacity; It does not prevent anyone from thinking about men's issues or organizing.
Your question is based on an assumption of mutual exclusivity. Being feminist doesn't mean you don't care about men's issues. That's as fallacious as saying feminists don't care about what's for dinner just because they don't explicitly mention it every time they bring up a women's issue. Sometimes a discussion needs to be really focused. That's why we have subreddits. =D
To clarify the concept of how "feminism is for everybody", I invite you to read the book of the same name, by bell hooks. The short answer, however, is that patriarchy dominates everyone, so it is in everyone's interest to dismantle it. Patriarchy is what tells men they can't cry, they need to "man up", that a man at a public playground is a molester, that a man with a child is abducting it, that a man can't be battered, that a man can't be raped, that a man shouldn't do dishes, that a man has to know sports and cars, that a man can't wear guyliner or a manpurse, and a whole bunch of other things. I know this because I experience it as a man.
You may be confused because these sentiments come from men and women. What you need to examine is not from whom the sentiments come from, but why the sentiments exist. From the moment we are born, we are informed as to what we are supposed to be like (gender roles). Both men and women hear these messages, believe it, and reinforce it. Everyone has to do a lot of unlearning, and everyone should fight these messages. It's an active effort to change things, so by definition, it is radical (bell hooks' words, paraphrased).
Go talk to a therapist for your anger issues.
To get a better understanding of the world, start here.
> Sexism hurts us all.
Feminism Is For Everybody!
> Implicit in this is the idea that only the struggles of those without privilege matter.
How do you figure? Shoot, even the feminists who are so popular to demonize on Reddit will talk about how patriarchy and toxic masculinity is bad for men, too. Men have to be men! Be a man! Wipe away those tears! Be strong and tough and a rock for everyone to lean on, and keep your problems inside! You don't want to make people think you're all emotional like a woman, do you?
Edit: I highly recommend bell hooks' Feminism is For Everybody.
Feminism Is for Everybody by bell hooks - a really great introduction into what feminism is really about, not anti-male, not anto-sex, not anti-family, but about all creating egalitarianism across gender, sex, race, class, and any other aspects of a person's identity. It's written in mostly accessible language, and I recommend this book to anyone who is open to learning about feminism from one of it's most influential theorists.
Two that I think are great without going back too far are Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, and Female Chauvinist Pigs.
I'm looking at amazon.com and thinking of ordering a new one from bell hooks, who I've always liked. As an African-American woman, hooks has always had a broader perspective.
I'd also recommend Susan Faludi's Backlash.
Amanda Marcotte's recent It's a Jungle Out There was a quick read and good.
I'm currently looking at Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism and by Siegel and Baumgardner's Sisterhood, Interrupted: From Radical Women to Grrls Gone Wild, but they're about 4th and 5th on my current reading list and I can't yet say how I'd rate them.
Also on my reading list is Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (Point/Counterpoint) by Warren Farrell, Steven Svoboda, and James P. Sterba on my list. Looking forward to that one. Warren Farrell is a former feminist and the father of the men's liberation movement. The movement had progressive roots, but I think Farrell's moved more center, and certainly the men's movement has some very conservative branches. I think it will be interesting splitting apart any anti-feminism from the pro-men's liberation stuff.
I personally don't think there's any conflict between men and women's liberation, but I want to be more informed as to the current arguments.
But Feminism is for Everybody.
MrAffinity wrote:
Bell Hooks, a fantastic feminist author, seems to think so.
http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Is-Everybody-Passionate-Politics/dp/0896086283
I suggest giving this a read!
I would consider myself a feminist, and I along with all other feminists I’ve met in my city (edit to add: and online! Except for one TERF who was horrible) are all quite passionate about the topics I mentioned :D Other than my personal experience I would say have a look at popular feminist websites for examples of what I’m talking about eg https://everydayfeminism.com
Also feminism as a whole is about fighting misogyny! It is extremely misogynistic to tell men certain jobs and hobbies are beneath them or that they should “man up” and not show emotions or seek help for health, or to tell men that it’s not possible for men to be raped or assaulted, or to rule in women’s favour in child custody battles because of notions that childcare is women’s business
Here are some people and sources to note:
It makes me sad to hear you got a bad impression of them from AW. If you'd like a recommendation, I would suggest reading [Feminism Is For Everybody] (http://www.amazon.ca/Feminism-Is-Everybody-Passionate-Politics/dp/0896086283) by bell hooks. It's a great primer for people new to feminism, very accessible, fun to read and not filled with academic jargon. [Here's] (http://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf) a free e-book version if you don't want to buy a hard copy.
Footnotes
(1) The label "rape culture" is a great example: It's basically devolved into an uber-polarizing red herring that ensures the discussion will entirely spiral into nothing more than frothing accusations of "femnazi SJWs and their safe spaces".
(2) I really REALLY hate the patronizing tone
youeveryone uses for "safe space". Having a place to vent and talk about issues that are only experienced by marginalized groups --without the conversation being derailed by the mob-- isn't a bad thing. It provides a venue for women to discuss and share ways of how to handle the little things and collectively decide when to turn something into a "big" thing.(3) Obviously when I say "everyone" I'm exaggerating to describe the workplace... Many of the friends I made there are still my friends today.
(4) Here's a excerpt of chat that I had:
>Friend 1:26 PM:
>lol, he is awesome. but he's abrasive and I am quite used to hearing the opposite from people
>ahhhhhhh
>never mind
>makes perfect sense
>kimb00 1:26 PM:
>huh?
>Friend 1:26 PM:
>becauseboobs
>:)
-------
(5) Reading Material Suggestions:
You might be better off with this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Feminism-Everybody-Passionate-bell-hooks/dp/0896086283
My recs for someone who is just getting into Feminism:
You're just going to get turned around in circles looking for answers here.
Start with bell hooks, specifically this.
First of all you are not my friend and secondly you don't need to baby talk me into understanding the definition of an "opinion." Also I won't discuss feminism you because I don't come on reddit to have debates with mens rights activist scumbags. If you want to learn about feminism you could start by reading a book.
You might want to educate yourself on the womens movement from the 60's, 70's and 80's. There's also some decent introductory feminist reading that is a good starting point such as feminism is for everybody.
The show Makers on PBS covers a lot of the early womens movement. There was a lot of yelling and screaming there too. You don't get what you want by being polite and asking for it nicely. You fight for it.
People think that feminism is this hate driven thing where they want to cut any dudes dick off because he is a man. No, they don't and that's the male driven media pushing that kind of thought.
It's mostly about abolishing patriarchy (which also hurts men) and want to bring down male privilege. While you might not think you are privileged, you probably are (are you white and male, then you are privileged). Just recognize your privilege, what it means and notice when it is being exercised. Most of the time it's invisible because if you are "the normal" for your country nobody will bother you. If that's the case, maybe travel to a country where you aren't normal or possibly where your country is even hated. Then you will see what it's like to not have that implicit privilege taken away.