The thing that frustrates many people might be that some feminists tend to pay some amount of lip service to the idea that men may get hurt but angrily suppress men who talk about it enough, esp in existing feminist forums
The response I’ve usually seen to this is more along the lines of “That’s true but it’s off-topic here” or “You’re disrupting the conversation; we’re talking about problems that women have here” — more and more heatedly as the off-topic posters persist.
Part of the trouble seems to be that these men give the impression that they are not willing to allow women (or specifically feminist women) to have a forum that belongs to them, where those women get to define “on-topic” in terms of their own standards, without permission from any man who passes by. That a forum just about women’s issues cannot be allowed to exist.
Suppose that every time Less Wrong had a thread about UFAI, a bunch of people showed up talking about fighting breast cancer; how UFAI wasn’t the only problem in the world — breast cancer is bad, too! They’d not be wrong — breast cancer is indeed bad — but it’s not on topic in a thread on UFAI. And when told “this is off topic, please take it to the optimal medicine thread or something”, they responded with hostility: “You FAI people must be bigoted against breast cancer survivors!” Over time, they made it clear that no discussion on LW would be allowed to not include breast cancer; that failing to mention breast cancer in every discussion would be taken as proof that LW was bigoted; that AI-folk had no right to hold discussions about ethics without breast cancer being on topic; and so on.
I think we would get a bit annoyed. Even those of us who care plenty about breast cancer.
Also, it’s probably worth noting that many feminists do want to discuss the way sexism impacts men, but find that self-invited men who wish to participate aren’t necessarily contributing in a positive way to that. Continuing your analogy, it would be like people who want to talk about UFAI found themselves fielding responses from people who think merely discussing AI makes you shills for the DOD who secretly work on drones and like bombing brown babies.
I understand (and agree with) the “off-topic” objection, but there is still one thing that does not make sense to me. Approximately this:
When men start talking about “men have problems too” within a feminist platform, they are told to shut up, because that is off-topic, an “oppression olympics”, etc.
On the other hand, when men start talking about “men have problems too” outside of feminist platform (on their own platform), they are also told to shut up, because either a) their ideas are compatible with feminism, so they should consider themselves a subset of feminism and not start a distinct platform, or b) their ideas are not compatible with feminism, which makes them evil oppressors.
So the discussion about men’s problems within feminist circles is labeled off-topic, but the discussion outside feminist circles is labeled anti-feminist, therefore evil. Where exactly is then this discussion supposed to happen? Nowhere?
I apologize for the simplification of the problem, but essentially the question is this: If I notice that feminists complain that X happens only to women, and I am honestly convinced that X happens to men too, which is the best way (preferred by the feminists) to discuss this?
(The analogy with FAI and breast cancer would be if FAI proponents constantly labeled the breast-cancer awareness websites and their participants as evil, because their petty concerns remove attention and resources from the serious problems of x-risks. Also: “cancer olympics” “No, seriously, what about teh boobz?” etc.)
I completely agree actually, although in the specific issue of gender the two sides are bound more to each other, and each side’s decision has more externalities, than with most conflicts of bigotry.
One frustration is that most of the male-centric counterparts SUCK compared to the feminist communities, many of the better ones desire an end to gender norms that I do not neccesarily desire, and others and get slagged by feminists even if they don’t attack the feminists very much.
The response I’ve usually seen to this is more along the lines of “That’s true but it’s off-topic here” or “You’re disrupting the conversation; we’re talking about problems that women have here” — more and more heatedly as the off-topic posters persist.
Part of the trouble seems to be that these men give the impression that they are not willing to allow women (or specifically feminist women) to have a forum that belongs to them, where those women get to define “on-topic” in terms of their own standards, without permission from any man who passes by. That a forum just about women’s issues cannot be allowed to exist.
Suppose that every time Less Wrong had a thread about UFAI, a bunch of people showed up talking about fighting breast cancer; how UFAI wasn’t the only problem in the world — breast cancer is bad, too! They’d not be wrong — breast cancer is indeed bad — but it’s not on topic in a thread on UFAI. And when told “this is off topic, please take it to the optimal medicine thread or something”, they responded with hostility: “You FAI people must be bigoted against breast cancer survivors!” Over time, they made it clear that no discussion on LW would be allowed to not include breast cancer; that failing to mention breast cancer in every discussion would be taken as proof that LW was bigoted; that AI-folk had no right to hold discussions about ethics without breast cancer being on topic; and so on.
I think we would get a bit annoyed. Even those of us who care plenty about breast cancer.
This.
Also, it’s probably worth noting that many feminists do want to discuss the way sexism impacts men, but find that self-invited men who wish to participate aren’t necessarily contributing in a positive way to that. Continuing your analogy, it would be like people who want to talk about UFAI found themselves fielding responses from people who think merely discussing AI makes you shills for the DOD who secretly work on drones and like bombing brown babies.
I understand (and agree with) the “off-topic” objection, but there is still one thing that does not make sense to me. Approximately this:
When men start talking about “men have problems too” within a feminist platform, they are told to shut up, because that is off-topic, an “oppression olympics”, etc.
On the other hand, when men start talking about “men have problems too” outside of feminist platform (on their own platform), they are also told to shut up, because either a) their ideas are compatible with feminism, so they should consider themselves a subset of feminism and not start a distinct platform, or b) their ideas are not compatible with feminism, which makes them evil oppressors.
So the discussion about men’s problems within feminist circles is labeled off-topic, but the discussion outside feminist circles is labeled anti-feminist, therefore evil. Where exactly is then this discussion supposed to happen? Nowhere?
I apologize for the simplification of the problem, but essentially the question is this: If I notice that feminists complain that X happens only to women, and I am honestly convinced that X happens to men too, which is the best way (preferred by the feminists) to discuss this?
(The analogy with FAI and breast cancer would be if FAI proponents constantly labeled the breast-cancer awareness websites and their participants as evil, because their petty concerns remove attention and resources from the serious problems of x-risks. Also: “cancer olympics” “No, seriously, what about teh boobz?” etc.)
I completely agree actually, although in the specific issue of gender the two sides are bound more to each other, and each side’s decision has more externalities, than with most conflicts of bigotry.
One frustration is that most of the male-centric counterparts SUCK compared to the feminist communities, many of the better ones desire an end to gender norms that I do not neccesarily desire, and others and get slagged by feminists even if they don’t attack the feminists very much.