Post on Mormon Feminist housewives upsets "male allies"

[_honorentheos]

Brad, I'm curious what your thoughts are on something.

Do you feel the author of the OP intended to convey the message that men and women do not share common cause on the underlying issues?

[Guest]

...

[_Sethbag]

I didn't understand the OP as setting terms for a marriage relationship. If I wanted to know what she would want in a marriage relationship, I would ask her.

I didn't understand it that way either. You were the one who asked me about my wife, via the whole gift giving on her birthday thing you attempted to tie in.

I get your point about the title of the post, but that doesn't address why she shouldn't be entitled to speak out against customs that she feels injured by?

I never said she shouldn't be entitled to speak out. I said I found her speech off-putting. No torches were lit. No pitchforks were sharpened.

So, you would apply something like: "Do unto others as you think they deserve?" And why would you think that a post that is clearly, on it's face, directed to men actually be written to women? Do you have some inside information I don't have about the individual?

I don't know this woman. I'll probably never interact with her at all, other than discussing her post on a different board. Given the tone and substance of her post, I feel very disinclined from attempting to change that in favor of any interaction with her.

Here are the reasons I don't think she's really writing for an audience of men. Here's a brief summation of the reasoning:
What she writes is so off-putting to men, that if she's really attempting to recruit males as feminist allies, I think she's doing a super-duper crappy job at it.

That being said, while her writing probably won't appeal to very many men, it might very well appeal to some of her like-minded female feminist colleagues.

She's using the command form in her directions to male, as if she is somehow a speaker for feminism, and carries some authority in the movement, rather than just being one drop in the feminist bucket.

By writing this way she's staking out a tacit claim to some type of authority within her circle, or at the least accumulating some celebrity or street cred or whatever amongst her colleagues.

The end result is likely to be that men are even less inclined to intrude in her circle of feminists, but her own position within that circle is boosted up a couple of notches. She could really not care less about the men, but will enjoy enhanced standing within her circle of female feminist colleagues.

So, I surmise that her focus was probably toward her female colleagues all along.

It's my opinion. I could be wrong.

[_Res Ipsa]

Brad, I'm curious what your thoughts are on something.

Do you feel the author of the OP intended to convey the message that men and women do not share common cause on the underlying issues?

No, I don't think she intended to convey that message. I think if you asked her whether men and women share common cause on the underlying issues, she would say "yes."

I suspect what she intended was to convey some frustrations that will sound pretty familiar if you've poked around feminist message boards. Well intentioned men, who consider themselves feminists or at least "not sexist," come into feminist "space" and start explaining to the women how they are doing things wrong, how they should think, how they should feel, what they should be doing without ever listening and attempting to really understand what the women in the forum are talking about. In other words, they are replicating the very conduct that the women feel repressed by.

When the women push back, the men often get angry that that the women aren't praising them for what they perceive to be making genuine efforts to be supportive. They will dominate thread after thread, derailing them into a discussion about their hurt feelings. Finally, they simply dismiss what the women are saying by calling them wackadoodles or annoying or sexists or bitches or high maintenance, etc.

So, I think she was trying to convey a very frustrated: "Guys, you're making things worse." "Here's why patriarchy hurts all of us" would be a different post.

That's probably more thoughts than you asked for.

[_Res Ipsa]

Sethbag: As could I.

[_Sethbag]

Now let's hug it out and drive on.

[_honorentheos]

That's probably more thoughts than you asked for.

It's a fair explanation for the context of the post.

So a follow-on question: Is it your impression that patriarchy and it's norms are synonymous with stereotypical masculine behavior within the underlying philosophy of the OP or those like her?

[_Res Ipsa]

Now let's hug it out and drive on.

Second start to the right and straight on till morning.

[_Res Ipsa]

That's probably more thoughts than you asked for.

It's a fair explanation for the context of the post.

So a follow-on question: Is it your impression that patriarchy and it's norms are synonymous with stereotypical masculine behavior within the underlying philosophy of the OP or those like her?

I'm not sure I've thought about it using the terms you've described. I guess I'd say that patriarchy and it's norms create an environment that fosters the behavior the OP is writing about. I don't think I'd call them synonymous -- I'd describe it as a causal relationship.

i'm not sure I'm answering the question you're asking.

[_honorentheos]

I guess I'd say that patriarchy and it's norms create an environment that fosters the behavior the OP is writing about.

Maybe it would help if you could explain how it fosters the behaviors described. And if the behaviors are aberrant among males or are associated with stereotypes of masculine characteristics. Or something else perhaps.