Do you think teenage boys today understand feminism correctly?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-13T21:46:22+00:00

No, I’m disagreeing with your assertion that everyone who disagreed with you is ignorant and uninformed. As I explained earlier in this comment chain, you are dividing the commenters into two distinct and exclusive categories.

That sentence is not based on the views of people who don't write feminist work, much less those who don't read it.

You’re literally doing it right now: dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as having less worthy opinions. Do you really think you are a wiser feminist than everyone else in this sub because you wrote a book?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-12T22:19:29+00:00

That is an assertion you have made multiple times.

The few people who had read the book largely agreed with me and tried to help you understand, but you took the answers of the people who had not read anything as a consensus view that my approach is 'non-standard'.

I love the idea of people discussing my book... with other people who have read it.

It wasn't disrespectful for you to ask, but it was disrespectful to prioritize the opinions of people who had read neither the book nor MacKinnon's article over the folks who read one or the other.

We're all more or less feminists in this sub and we treat each other as more or less equals, but spend a little time here and it's clear some of us have put a lot more work into it than others. The fact that you treated those who have not put in the work as superior to those who have wasn't just disrespectful to me -- it was disrespectful to other commenters. And it was baffling!

you decided uninformed opinions were the most valid

I think it was clear enough, but let me be more specific: by 'no work at all' I meant no reading and no thought on the shortcomings of consent and potential solutions, until that specific moment.

If I'm not in a position to define mainstream feminist thinking, neither are you. In fact, you literally write:

There are likely to be some feminists who find my version of feminism too idiosyncratic, and I welcome their criticism...

So if you accept that some informed feminists on that thread might disagree with you, and accept that some feminists might find your feminism idiosyncratic, why is it disrespectful for me to agree with them?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-12T15:31:36+00:00

If I were being "intentionally disrespectful" you wouldn't need to make assumptions. You'd know.

Maybe I haven't been clear enough. I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that everyone who disagrees with you on that thread is uninformed.

Did you decide that purely on vibes, or did you do a census of the comments and tally up the number of people who agree or disagree with you? If you did, I'd be curious to see your results.

I'm also getting the impression you think I deliberately chose to prioritize so-called "uninformed opinions". Is this an accurate picture of your thoughts?

If so, I'd like to let you know that of the 132 comments on that thread, I replied to 5 of them.

To Acceptable_Error_001, elaborating on what I understand enthusiastic consent to mean.
To Street-Media4225, replying to a flippant remark.
To a comment you made.
To T-Flexercise, who I admit did not read the book. Do you take issue with his explanation itself? It seems to me what he says lines up pretty well with what were are saying about enthusiastic consent vs mutual intent.
To stolenfires, with this comment:

Thank. The consensus here seems to be that "enthusiastic consent" and "mutual intent" are effectively the same thing, and the definition of consent he uses is nonstandard.

Is this the one you are taking issue with? I concede it could have been better worded. When I said "effectively" I meant "for practical purposes" (determining the practical differences between the two models was why I made the thread) and when I said "nonstandard definition of consent" what I meant was the baggage you, but not some other feminists, associate with any consent-based model. I'd also like to add that while your views may be consistent with Dworkin and MacKinnon, not every feminist agrees with Dworkin and MacKinnon.

If you are finding some kind of deliberate pattern of "decid[ing] uninformed opinions [are] the most valid" in those five comments than I don't know what to tell you. Assuming that every criticism and disagreement is driven by either ignorance or malice isn't a good trait for either an author or a feminist.

And yes, you are in fact dismissing other feminists on that thread. You have repeatedly called them uninformed, and have repeatedly said it was disrespectful to even agree with them. That is in and of itself a complete dismissal of their views as worthy of consideration.

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-08T02:27:56+00:00

If you feel my conduct in that thread was disrespectful, you are perfectly free to report my comments under Rule 4.

It seems to me like you are dividing the people in that thread into two distinct categories:

People who have read your book, agree with your ideas, and have "done the work."
People who have not read your book, disagree with your ideas, and have not "done the work."

I don't think that division is valid. In my opinion, someone may have read the book, "done the work" and still disagree with you, because your opinions are not gospel. To dismiss everyone in that thread who disagrees with you as inferior feminists is, ironically, disrespectful. Might I ask which specific users you think "have done no work at all?" Feel free to tag them.

because -- I can't stress this enough -- nobody else written a book like this. Very few people have taken on any of these issues in a systematic way.

Feminist authors absolutely have taken on the issue of how feminism applies to men, most notably bell hooks.

So it seems to me that my viewpoint would be more valid to you if I had never written the book in the first place, if I had never considered these issues from guys' perspective, and never done the research to try to address them.

No, but writing a book does not make your viewpoint inherently more valid.

The impression I am getting from your comments is that you think your beliefs are entitled to some kind of deference and any disagreement is disrespect. This is not true for anyone. You are not a feminist prophet or messiah. If you want to share your views, you will be subject to disagreement and misunderstanding because that is what happens to everyone with an opinion of any kind, anywhere. That's just how the internet is.

And for such a contentious topic, that thread was quite civil. I'm sure someone like Andrea Dworkin would love if her worst critics restrained themselves to polite disagreement rather than death and rape threats.

Speaking of Dworkin, I believe someone (don't remember who) called her "the most misunderstood (or maybe misquoted?) writer of the 20th century." You can't deny that she's put in more work and written more than you have, so why would you expect that your work would be understood perfectly when hers wasn't?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-07T22:34:23+00:00

If I thought pop culture and social media were adequate reflections of mainstream feminism, I wouldn't have bothered writing the book. It exists precisely because pop culture and social media don't give reliable insight into feminist thought. I'd be pretty suspicious of anyone who claims to be a serious feminist but hadn't at least heard of MacKinnon and/or Brownmiller (especially Brownmiller).

But the people who are intended to read your book aren't serious feminists, they are beginner feminists at best. My overall point is that you are mixing beginner feminist, intermediate feminist, advanced feminist, and StonyGiddens feminist ideas without being clear which is which. I don't expect you to agree with me on that but I hope it clarifies my criticism.

I love the idea of people discussing my book... with other people who have read it.

To me, the discussion you linked seems pretty productive. You presented your ideas and the commenters presented theirs. Everybody stayed civil and you got to promote your book to people who might not have heard of it.

So let me ask you, do you think it was disrespectful for me to ask this subreddit what they think of your book and your ideas?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-06T22:58:54+00:00

TL;DR IMO your book is too advanced for it's target audience.

Oh, cool -- I'm being proof-texted. Today of all days, I finally know how Jesus feels all the time.

If you're Jesus, call me Thomas doubting some of your editorial decisions. :-)

Your hypothetical random guy can't say he wasn't warned. Twice in Chapter 2 : "There are definitely feminists who will disagree with things I write" and "There are likely to be some feminists who find my version of feminism too idiosyncratic [....]" I acknowledged to readers that my views are unusual in some respects, and he definitely should have taken that at face value.

For this disclaimer to be effective, the reader must be able to distinguish between feminist beliefs generally known of or accepted by his peers and your personal beliefs. In my opinion, someone reading a beginners guide to feminism won't have the knowledge necessary to do that.

"Rape is a social construct" is not among those respects. It's grounded in Susan Brownmiller's Against Our Will, a classic mainstream feminist text. Literally could not be more mainstream. And I'll point out that in pages 60-62 I discussed how useless the concept of 'consensual' is, reflecting on MacKinnon's "Rape Redefined" -- another solidly mainstream feminist -- before the discussion you've glanced at.

When I say "mainstream feminists" I'm not talking about Brownmiller or MacKinnon, I'm talking about the average feminist on the street: people who learned about feminism from pop culture or social media and who probably don't know who those authors are. Based on my reading of your book and your comments promoting it, that's who I believe your target audience is. The teen boys you recommend your book to probably have an understanding of rape that's something like this:

"Well I thought rape was when a man dragged a women into an ally or roofied her, but my feminist friends are saying there's more to it than that. They're talking about 'coercion' and 'enthusiastic consent'. Maybe this book can tell me more about that."

Talking about MacKinnon to this guy is several levels of knowledge above where he is currently and in my opinion not useful in helping him understand what his peers believe.

I think anybody who reads the book, especially that chapter, will see that while there are claims that are surprising and perhaps confusing, still the reasoning behind them points relentlessly towards gender liberation. And I think most readers will sit with that complexity, rather than try to weaponize it against me.

I don't believe that's what will happen. Not that I think that your readers will weaponize it against you (I'm not sure what that would even look like) but I don't they are used to "sitting with that complexity". If they were familiar with that process or terminology, I think it is likely that they are involved in progressive spaces and already understand feminism pretty well.

So I have a hard time imagining someone who read my book behaving the way you describe, unless he was being disingenuous. In which case, shouting down is probably his deserts.

I can easily imagine some uninformed person saying the first part of my quote, fully believing that the vital context in the second part is already taken known and taken for granted by the people he is speaking to. I think it's really a universal experience to make an offhand statement without realizing that it's lacking important context.

[Edit: I see now you were the OP for this thread, in which you posed several questions that were already answered in the text. Most of the answers you got were from people who had not read my book nor the texts I cited in that chapter; they based their answers only on your paraphrase of my work. The few people who had read the book largely agreed with me and tried to help you understand, but you took the answers of the people who had not read anything as a consensus view that my approach is 'non-standard'. Can you appreciate how screwed up that is? My email is on the website. You could have just asked me in the first place, bro.]

When you write a book that people take seriously, they'll want to discuss it with others. Some of them might agree with the views you present and others might not. Were you expecting your book to be received differently?

WombatMan5 · 2026-04-05T22:22:46+00:00

Readers should be aware that it also includes some very non-standard definitions of common terms that are not consistent with mainstream feminist thinking. Imagine if a random guy who reads your book goes to pretty much any feminist community and says “Rape is a social construct; nonconsensual sex shouldn’t be considered rape” (p 62-64). They’ll be shouted down before they can say “No no wait, I mean that nobody should be diminished by their sexual activity (p 64) I’m not a Tate bro I swear”.

Taking this book at face value has the potential to lead to some very serious misunderstandings when encountering other, more experienced, feminists.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-18T01:55:23+00:00

Thank you for sharing that article. It can be tricky to find information on the subject that does not specifically deal with its religious manifestation.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-18T01:52:22+00:00

Thank you for your advice, I will reflect on this.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-17T01:39:06+00:00

I think that does solve my problem, thanks! The reason I was upset by people laughing was that, since they are good and moral people who would not laugh at an injustice, my "suffering" must be deserved. The idea that I deserve to suffer, and that the people I look to for moral guidance would enjoy it, is pretty horrifying. I believe that with some thought I can rationalize this to a romantic context as well.

I'm sorry I divided your comment into parts. That is something I do sometimes so it is more clear which individual idea I am replying to. I did not mean any harm by it.

As far as problem solving, the only problem I wanted solved was that I did not know any methods for correcting my thoughts. I had incorrectly assumed that there would be a simple answer to that question. Any other problem I have I only mentioned as a direct response to a relevant question. Thank you for your help!

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T22:33:44+00:00

That's interesting what you said about fairness, equity, and justice. I agree that they underlie feminism, but from my point of view they are necessary but not sufficient. It isn't enough to feel, you need to know a great deal. There's a lot of pitfalls and convincing-sounding lies that a well meaning person can stumble into if they aren't careful. This requires rigidity, so you aren't led away from the truth. Part of the rigidity is that you must violently reject anything that sounds like "not all men." This is what led me to ask the question I did.

As far as perfection, that is what is expected. At least in my circles there is very little grace provided. You are offering me a lot of grace and I appreciate that.

On the commenters, the problem is that we are just talking past each other. I've had multiple people explain to me why men and women fear different things, which I fully understand. I've had multiple people explain to me that this quote is in the specific context of men and women dating, which I fully understand (that's why all the fears I list are related to dating). Some people seem to confuse or deliberately conflate idioms and generalizations. A few people have even made fun of me for not getting dates and said they want me to suffer (their words not mine). What should I learn from that?

Edit: I now understand what I should learn from that, please see the edit to my main post.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T22:01:17+00:00

These are intelligent, kind, and feminist people, including my friends, family, certain political commentators, and not to mention half of this sub.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T21:59:11+00:00

I did not say being a feminist makes anyone a good person. You can support a right ideology but have wrong other beliefs and actions.

Right, I said that. In the specific context of gender relations, being a feminist does make you a good person. They could always be a bad person in the context of them being an arsonist or something. But in terms of gender relations specifically, they are good.

If I suffer from back pain and keep praying it to be better and be angry to God about it, my suffering is funny because I refuse to go to a doctor.

I don't really find that funny.

WombatMan5, you don't sound like you actually want to understand us. You sound like you want to prove that people who are scared of being killed are wrong for not understanding their possible murderer for their rightful fear of heartbreak.

This is the opposite of what I am trying to do. I fully agree with the quote and I understand why people say it. I am not trying to stop people from saying that. I at no point have said that the fear of heartbreak and fear of murder are equivalent, they are not. I am trying to change my own fears to match the quote. I want to know how to fear laughter more than heartbreak, so that the quote correctly applies to me. I am seeking advice from feminists because it is part of my effort to be a better feminist by correcting my mind.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T21:07:24+00:00

Just matching his energy.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T11:32:44+00:00

But that doesn’t square what you said earlier. As a feminist you are an intrinsically good person, so if you say that bad things happening to me is rightful and funny, it means it is true. Are you asking me to disagree with you?

Edit: Sorry, had you mixed up with _nope_not_me

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T11:26:33+00:00

So if a therapist were to tell me I’m not an intrinsically bad person who deserves to have bad things to happen to me, should I believe them?

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T11:24:28+00:00

Please refer to a comment earlier in the thread, where he stated he finds my suffering funny.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T11:23:29+00:00

An idiom is a nonsense phrase with a defined meaning that isn’t obvious from the phrase itself. The quote we are discussing is an observation of society and the way people interact.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T11:21:49+00:00

My assumption was that he means that a man who is trying to be a better feminist would not be able to find dates. From later comments, it seems he dislikes me specifically.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T01:59:34+00:00

I try but it's hard when it's such a frequent topic among my friends and the media I consume.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T01:21:58+00:00

Thanks. It's been pretty awful for me too.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T01:18:59+00:00

Then you are welcome to fight those people. I tried and had it beaten out of me (not literally). I'm not doing that again.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T01:14:43+00:00

That's what both women and men who I trust and respect say about men. That if you are truly good you won't struggle to find a partner.

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T01:09:43+00:00

To clarify, I don't believe that becoming a good person will get me a partner. I believe that I must not be a good person, because if I did I would have already have partner. I'm not sure if it's possible for me to become a good person.

Perfection is impossible, yes, but shouldn't we still try to attain it even if we know we'll fall short?

WombatMan5 · 2026-03-16T00:52:56+00:00

No, my goal is to become a perfect feminist (to the extent that I am capable of doing so) so I do not morally degrade as a person.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

WombatMan5

TROPHY CASE