I'm male and whilst I don't tend to identify as a feminist it's just because it tends to cause trouble. My views could be said to be fairly in line with mainstream feminism. So I suppose I'm a de facto feminist.
You're pulling a real straw man here, dude. I've never seen nor done any of these myself and I've been involved a fair bit in feminist debate over the years.
For the record, I'm pretty much the same as you in terms of views. I'm just not comfortable calling myself a feminist, because I feel I'd be co-opting something which isn't for me. I can't speak with any sort of experience about institutionalised sexism or body issues for instance. I'll gladly call out blatant sexism and misogyny and actively support equal pay and treatment but I can't speak on all women's behalf on these issues
This came out of a conversation I had with a lady friend of mine about the increasing amount of liberal guys which seem eager to be rewarded for their views. This blog entry makes a noble point about the rise of "anti PC" comedy for instance. What bugs me though, and I fully admit this is how I'm reading it, is the tone of self-importance about it. "that Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle offer something to people who want to hear what I would describe as hateful comedy" - as if no one else could ever find self consciously offensive material "hateful
( ... )
I had with a lady friend of mine about the increasing amount of liberal guys which seem eager to be rewarded for their views.
Well.. excuse the borderline misanthropy, but I'm not sure that's not what everyone's doing. Some people's attempted earning of favour is just more transparent than others'.
During the 'Boobquake' movement too, one lone self-described male feminist voiced disapproval saying that women shouldn't have to dress provactively. Evidently missing the point by telling a movement set up as a reaction to a man criticising women for what they wear to er... cover up.
I get what you're saying, but somehow that line of argument makes me uncomfortable. I don't know the context of course, but you could be making a rather uncharitable reading of it.
My friend Suraya (female, obviously) didn't like the Boobquake thing at all for broadly the same reasons.
I'm not fond of burlesque for several reasons, but I don't think this is really the moment to go into it.
I get what you're saying, but somehow that line of argument makes me uncomfortable. I don't know the context of course, but you could be making a rather uncharitable reading of it.
I'd link to it if I could find it so alas we'll have to rely on my memory of it. But I do remember him arguing against it from the perspective of a male feminist.
My friend Suraya (female, obviously) didn't like the Boobquake thing at all for broadly the same reasons.
And that's her right to. I'm not arguing that everyone should get behind boobquake, I'm just saying that I don't think it was that guys place to tell women how to dress.
I'm not fond of burlesque for several reasons, but I don't think this is really the moment to go into it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer on what I was trying to say. Whatever you may feel about burlesque, it's still not his place to tell women how they should feel about it.
Comments 7
Reply
Luckily they were voted down because ew forever
Reply
Reply
You're pulling a real straw man here, dude. I've never seen nor done any of these myself and I've been involved a fair bit in feminist debate over the years.
Reply
This came out of a conversation I had with a lady friend of mine about the increasing amount of liberal guys which seem eager to be rewarded for their views. This blog entry makes a noble point about the rise of "anti PC" comedy for instance. What bugs me though, and I fully admit this is how I'm reading it, is the tone of self-importance about it. "that Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle offer something to people who want to hear what I would describe as hateful comedy" - as if no one else could ever find self consciously offensive material "hateful ( ... )
Reply
Well.. excuse the borderline misanthropy, but I'm not sure that's not what everyone's doing. Some people's attempted earning of favour is just more transparent than others'.
During the 'Boobquake' movement too, one lone self-described male feminist voiced disapproval saying that women shouldn't have to dress provactively. Evidently missing the point by telling a movement set up as a reaction to a man criticising women for what they wear to er... cover up.
I get what you're saying, but somehow that line of argument makes me uncomfortable. I don't know the context of course, but you could be making a rather uncharitable reading of it.
My friend Suraya (female, obviously) didn't like the Boobquake thing at all for broadly the same reasons.
I'm not fond of burlesque for several reasons, but I don't think this is really the moment to go into it.
Reply
I'd link to it if I could find it so alas we'll have to rely on my memory of it. But I do remember him arguing against it from the perspective of a male feminist.
My friend Suraya (female, obviously) didn't like the Boobquake thing at all for broadly the same reasons.
And that's her right to. I'm not arguing that everyone should get behind boobquake, I'm just saying that I don't think it was that guys place to tell women how to dress.
I'm not fond of burlesque for several reasons, but I don't think this is really the moment to go into it.
Sorry, I should have been clearer on what I was trying to say. Whatever you may feel about burlesque, it's still not his place to tell women how they should feel about it.
Reply
Leave a comment