Your lowest rated comment is what you say to a girl at the bar. How does that go for you?

Probably bore them to death...

I disagree with this BestOf.

The writer seems to assert a few things.

A) 'Control/power over one's life' being a key point of contemporary gender issues.

B) Men are rejected in the context of Feminism due to the fact that they have their space.

C) The author speaks about his/her personal experience at the protest.


As I interpret feminism, 'Power over one's life' is a goal second to 'Dismantling institutions rooted gendered roles and related expectations'. Superficially, they're two sides of the same coin, basically pointing at the problem at two directions. I'd compare this to the difference between: "Dismantling the plutocracy in Washington." and "Giving the poor a voice." Similar in structure, both attacking the same problem from two sides. However, the goals are not the same. In both comparisons, one is a deconstruction [in more ways than one] of an aspect of society. The other is the effort to give voice to the apparently disenfranchised.
The former relies on a group rejection of an institution, which is far easier of a goal than the latter which is making those in relative power willingly give way to those disenfranchised.

Most feminists I know including myself make efforts to deconstruct BOTH gendered roles in society, male and female. There is generally space for both men AND women to talk about iniquities respective to each gender. That said, it takes time, energy and patience to do so, and none of those are in consistent excess.
In my experience, when people try to confront the feminist movement with men's issues, those are valid to some degree, but:
i) They tend to be relatively rare events or exceptions to the rule, i.e. not common in society or
ii) They tend to be issues that would be themselves resolved with a more egalitarian and less male-centric society
iii) They're very analogous to certain feminist views that could simply be shared if both sides had more open minds
iv) Their point is simply seriously off-topic and more appropriate for a different discussion, audience, or context

As such, I respect people to share their views, but I can't always respect the views they share, if only due to their apparent short-sightedness/myopia in this regard.

Protests are no more appropriate a venue than a Public-Release-Press-Conference-whatever to hold a dialogue. Both are unilateral announcements of a single side of an issue. Your views on the validity of the last statement may be otherwise, but the reality of the situation is that the people there did not go there to discuss so much as share a specific viewpoint. Not to mention semi-decentralized [no governing body/organization] protests are notoriously difficult to control, especially in an unstructured grassroots context. The author may have gone to talk with the best intentions, but that's not what most protests are for, in effect, and he/she should reassess the audience and the venue through which dialogue is best facilitated.

EDIT: That said, OP, I appreciate you submitting this to BestOf - this is an interesting perspective that is well thought-out.

/r/AskReddit Thread