"The new Feminism is a war against women" - Brendan O'Neil

[Jolly_Penguin]

What do you make of Brendan O'Neil's stance that the new Feminism is not a war against men (he thinks very little of MRAs) but a war against women. He feels that the new Feminism infantalizes women and expresses open contempt for women in a way that you never hear from men. He says he sees a lot in the new Feminism that he sees in Victorian attitudes from 150 years ago towards women.

Skip to the 4:00 mark in this video and give it a listen. I am curious what you will all say of it. Do you dismiss O'Neil as misogynist, or does he have a point?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLN2U_HJp8[/youtube]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it may be a war but it's one being fought by a bunch of women. How worried does anyone need to be?

 

[Copernicus]

He seems to express a lot of unsupported opinions about the new feminism without really giving specifics about what he objects to or even what he thinks the "new feminism" is. I haven't listened to the whole clip yet, but starting at around the 4 minute mark, I found his comments to be facile, tedious generalizations without any specific examples of what he was so ticked off about. Maybe he says something more substantive elsewhere in the video. I'll have to listen again when I have more time and if I can get over the boredom of hearing someone rant on and on without bothering to provide support for his complaints.

 

[Arctish]

I have no idea who these 'Third Wave' feminists who infantilize women are, how widespread their ideas are in modern culture, or if they even exist.

Who are these feminists O'Neill is talking about? It can't be someone like Chanty Binx because 1) she doesn't infantilize women, 2) her fight is against Patriarchy, not men, and 3) O'Neill agrees with her - see minute 1 of that video. So who are they? Name names so we can read their blogs and essays, find their You Tube videos, and figure out if O'Neill is accurately portraying them or if he's knocking down strawman arguments of his own creation.

 

[Copernicus]

I have no idea who these 'Third Wave' feminists who infantilize women are, how widespread their ideas are in modern culture, or if they even exist.

Who are these feminists O'Neill is talking about? It can't be someone like Chanty Binx because 1) she doesn't infantilize women, 2) her fight is against Patriarchy, not men, and 3) O'Neill agrees with her - see minute 1 of that video. So who are they? Name names so we can read their blogs and essays, find their You Tube videos, and figure out if O'Neill is accurately portraying them or if he's knocking down strawman arguments of his own creation.

That was exactly my problem with O'Neill's speech. I admit that I haven't been following the feminist literature lately, so I continue to think of feminism in its older sense. But facebook suggests that the  New Feminism is sort of the old feminism but with women's different biological function (e.g. child-rearing) taken into consideration. However, that is exactly how I remembered the old style feminism. What I concluded is that younger activists are working off of a modern caricature of old style feminism that took it to be some kind of radical (maybe lesbianish?) egalitarian movement that denied differences between the sexes. In fact, that isn't an accurate depiction of what was a coalition of different groups. So I guess that people who didn't live through that era tend to see the 60s and 70s in terms of the more extreme elements of those times that stand out to them now. Like the way some people think that all people in the youth movement were pot-smoking drug-addled hippies who never bathed and had no sense of morality or patriotism. (There were a lot of those, but they are mostly all Trump supporters these days. )

 

[Derec]

What do you make of Brendan O'Neil's stance that the new Feminism is not a war against men (he thinks very little of MRAs) but a war against women.

Why can't it be both?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no idea who these 'Third Wave' feminists who infantilize women are, how widespread their ideas are in modern culture, or if they even exist.

Who are these feminists O'Neill is talking about? It can't be someone like Chanty Binx because 1) she doesn't infantilize women, 2) her fight is against Patriarchy, not men, and 3) O'Neill agrees with her - see minute 1 of that video. So who are they? Name names so we can read their blogs and essays, find their You Tube videos, and figure out if O'Neill is accurately portraying them or if he's knocking down strawman arguments of his own creation.

So much hatred of the strawwoman movement out there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no idea who these 'Third Wave' feminists who infantilize women are, how widespread their ideas are in modern culture, or if they even exist.

Who are these feminists O'Neill is talking about? It can't be someone like Chanty Binx because 1) she doesn't infantilize women, 2) her fight is against Patriarchy, not men, and 3) O'Neill agrees with her - see minute 1 of that video. So who are they? Name names so we can read their blogs and essays, find their You Tube videos, and figure out if O'Neill is accurately portraying them or if he's knocking down strawman arguments of his own creation.

It seems the people most familiar with these alleged movements are the haters of it themselves. Not even the people within the movement understand it better than the haters of it.

 

[laughing dog]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

Clearly you are voluntarily submitting by not listening to and agreeing with a person you've never heard before, railing about a movement you were unaware that was allegedly happening, run by women you also most likely have never heard of before. It was posted by our board's only 'true liberal' and it has Derec's blessing

 

[laughing dog]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

Clearly you are voluntarily submitting by not listening to and agreeing with a person you've never heard before, railing about a movement you were unaware that was allegedly happening, run by women you also most likely have never heard of before. It was posted by our board's only 'true liberal' and it has Derec's blessing

I did listen to that snowflake. While it is difficult for me to take these complaints or "alarms" seriously, it is impossible to take vague accusations without evidence seriously.

In general, we live on a planet with over 6 billion people. If 0.1% are fringe thinkers, that translates into 6 million. So unless these pushers for social change have the momentum or power to affect social thinking, why bother worrying about them?

Add in that the same male posters ride the same hobby horses on the generalized theme of "the attack on men", and it just seems so pathetic and self-serving.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

He agrees with you. That's why what he's saying is notable. He considers MRAs to be whiners who live in their mothers' basements. He has no compassion for men who are discriminated against. Its the first thing he says in that clip after the 4:00 mark.

He instead points to the progress Feminism has made (and identifies himself as one of them) and then goes on to claim that the "new Feminists" are undoing that by considering women fragile and without agency. I wouldn't go as far as he does in comparing it to Victorian times, but he does have a point. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" point I've seen made by various people over the years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

He agrees with you. That's why what he's saying is notable. He considers MRAs to be whiners who live in their mothers' basements. He has no compassion for men who are discriminated against. Its the first thing he says in that clip after the 4:00 mark.

He instead points to the progress Feminism has made (and identifies himself as one of them) and then goes on to claim that the "new Feminists" are undoing that by considering women fragile and without agency. I wouldn't go as far as he does in comparing it to Victorian times, but he does have a point. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" point I've seen made by various people over the years.

I'm completely against anti-semitism. What I will say is that Jews aren't doing themselves any favors by manipulating the markets for their own gain.

 

[laughing dog]

I guess as an older man that my sensitivity to all the attacks on me and my fellow males is dulled because almost all of this sounds like men whining about either how tough they have it or how unfair life is towards them alone.

He agrees with you. That's why what he's saying is notable. He considers MRAs to be whiners who live in their mothers' basements. He has no compassion for men who are discriminated against. Its the first thing he says in that clip after the 4:00 mark.

He does not agree with me because he is one of the whiners. See below.

He instead points to the progress Feminism has made (and identifies himself as one of them) and then goes on to claim that the "new Feminists" are undoing that by considering women fragile and without agency. I wouldn't go as far as he does in comparing it to Victorian times, but he does have a point. It reminds me of the "soft bigotry of low expectations" point I've seen made by various people over the years.

There are no facts in his argument. There is no evidence that these alleged "new Feminists" have any power or have any influence whatsoever. The expectation that there will be no fringe thinkers in any movement is ridiculous. Becoming alarmed about fringe ideas that have no agency is a waste of time. His handwaved vague accusations are simply a variant of "I am a feminist but....." seems more like another form of whining by a man.

 

[ruby sparks]

First impressions of the OP video: it's pretty much mostly a load of crap, imo. The, to me, facile-seeming derision of the idea that feminism isn't or wasn't a war on men as a set-up for the alternative that it's a war on women was not in the least convincing. I seriously doubt the latter is accurate. If he has a point, he's shot it in the foot with that assertion, imo.

That said, he's entitled to his opinion, even if in my opinion it's not balanced or fair. One can also find (online) anti-feminist views expressed by women which are not entirely dissimilar to his, so it's not necessarily that he's a bloke that I'm disagreeing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

First impressions of the OP video: it's pretty much mostly a load of crap, imo. The, to me, facile-seeming derision of the idea that feminism isn't or wasn't a war on men as a set-up for the alternative that it's a war on women was not in the least convincing.

So you think he really sees it as a war on men, is a reactionary anti-female misogynist, and is disguising that by saying he sees it as a war on women? Would you think the same if it was a woman saying the same thing he is saying?

 

[ruby sparks]

First impressions of the OP video: it's pretty much mostly a load of crap, imo. The, to me, facile-seeming derision of the idea that feminism isn't or wasn't a war on men as a set-up for the alternative that it's a war on women was not in the least convincing.

So you think he really sees it as a war on men, is a reactionary anti-female misogynist, and is disguising that by saying he sees it as a war on women? Would you think the same if it was a woman saying the same thing he is saying?

I didn't say that and no I don't necessarily think it. To be honest though, calling New Feminism (whatever that is) a war on women does make me a bit suspicious.

 

[ruby sparks]

Would you think the same if it was a woman saying the same thing he is saying?

Sorry, I belatedly added to my post above:

That said, he's entitled to his opinion, even if in my opinion it's not balanced or fair. One can also find (online) anti-feminist views expressed by women which are not entirely dissimilar to his, so it's not necessarily that he's a bloke that I'm disagreeing.

In short, yes, it would imo still probably be bollocks.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've googled some more by this guy and he has also said that the push to eliminate racist language and behaviour from football is a war on the working class's natural freedom of expression. He has apparently, according to wiki, said that victims of abuse (such as those abused by Jimmy Saville) would have been more virtuous if they had kept quiet about it and he admires those who did that, and he has some questionable, imo, criticisms of efforts to reduce global warming. He's also apparently opposed to same-sex marriage (proponents of it are the 'new authoritarians' he says) and thinks secularism is in crisis (and is a war on religion*).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_O'Neill_(journalist)

I'm putting him in the category 'arsehole with a big mouth' until persuaded otherwise. People like that usually have some valid point or other underneath all the hyperbole, but it's so overstated and unbalanced that they are ruining it, imo (even assuming they genuinely mean it). One gets the impression of an urge to merely be controversial.

One thing seems to be apparent. He likes the words 'new' and 'war'.






* On this last one, he may have more of a point, imo, but first, he badly conflates secularism with New Atheism, and second, his elaborations on even that (New Atheism) are....well, you read it...it's...

"An atheism utterly alienated from the mass of humanity and from any future-oriented vision can only lash out in an extreme and intolerant way against those who still seem to have strong beliefs..."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/8526#.WqAcjpPFJGM

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good find, ruby, and yes he does seem to be as you say.

That of course doesn't diminish his point in the video or make that perspective less interesting.

Here is another take on what he has said that I found (from a viewpoint we are unlikely to find on this board): https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4i2yee/brendan_oneill_the_new_feminism_is_not_a_war_on/

Firstly, New Feminism vs True Feminism isn't about female weakness vs female strength. It's about two different kinds of female strength. The weakness is a social fiction if you like, but it's a social fiction that has traditionally put men under the obligation of providing for and protecting women. That particular social contract may have been thrown out, but it suits feminists quite well to preserve the old female privileges.

Secondly, there's no evidence at all that New Feminism and True Feminism neutralize or invalidate each other. That could only happen if reporters were in the habit of asking difficult questions of feminists, which they're not. So feminists can deploy whichever model is most useful, pretty certain that they're not going to be asked about any big picture contradictions, and that no inconvenient conclusions will be drawn. If women are earning the majority of college degrees, True Feminists triumphantly proclaim that smart sassy girls are outwitting boys. If men still earn the majority of math degrees, New Feminists will tell a story of nerds creating a threatening environment in the classroom.

Again, the writer has a point.