quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Of course, if you mean 'radical feminist' then that would probably give you something quite different....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Can there be such a thing as male feminism? I mean, there can surely be such a thing as feminism followed/subscribed to by males, but in describing something as "male feminism" you are starting to distinguish two different things. You have made it gendered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Certainly, in the UK there were plenty of female feminists who were averse to any anti-male stuff, and in fact, the anti-anti-porn movement was vigorous in the UK, although the US had some very good writers on it, e.g. Linda Williams.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
The classic statement of male feminism (of a liberal kind) is John Stuart Mill's marvellous and moving essay On the Subjection of Women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Certainly, in the UK there were plenty of female feminists who were averse to any anti-male stuff, and in fact, the anti-anti-porn movement was vigorous in the UK, although the US had some very good writers on it, e.g. Linda Williams.

---

Are you saying that to be anti-porn is to be anti-male? That's an interesting juxtaposition.

To equate being anti-porn with being anti-male suggests that the use of porn is at the core of maleness, and therefore to object to it is to object to maleness itself. So the female feminist who claims to love her husband yet disapproves of porn is living in a contradiction and fighting in vain against biology.

One sometimes comes across the apparently cynical comment that all the intelligent men in the 70s were feminists, because it was the only way to get women into bed. But maybe it's not that cynical after all. Maybe male feminism represents the perfect blending of political theory and human biology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
... Nature has decreed that women, (because of the childbearing capability), have an expanded sense of compassion ...

---

That`s not male feminism, that`s the Victorian view of women.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's also essentialism, which many gender theorists and feminists rejected. Instead, they turned to the notion of the 'social construction of gender', and I assume this is still current today.

But ironically, it seemed that some radical feminists also fell into essentialism, if they argued that the male is basically a rapacious and oppressive sex.

We used to call this 'original sin for gender theory', and of course, Mary Daly was originally a theologian, I think, and she came up with some amazing essentialist stuff, see her book 'Pure Lust'.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Is there such a thing as a male feminist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
But, for a man to pretend to be a feminist means that he presumes to speak for women. That he cannot do.

---

quote:

---

fem·i·nist
adjective Sometimes, fem·i·nis·tic.
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
But, for a man to pretend to be a feminist means that he presumes to speak for women. That he cannot do.

---

I think you have an idiosyncratic idea of the connotations of the word "feminist". What's wrong with this dictionary definition?

quote:

---

fem·i·nist
adjective Sometimes, fem·i·nis·tic.
1.
advocating social, political, legal, and economic rights for women equal to those of men.

noun
2.
an advocate of such rights.

---

Nothing in there about presuming to speak for anyone, as far as I can see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

quote:

---

... it was the Spartan group which enjoyed the greatest happiness. They lacked two things which are valued by women to-day --- a vote and a wardrobe. The former is no longer so much desired as it once was; and the women of modern Switzerland manage very well without it.

---

quote:

---

"Women." There is no need to attempt a definition. We are always with them, and they with us. Fortunately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Of course, if you mean 'radical feminist' then that would probably give you something quite different....

---

If I ever meet a so-called 'radical feminist' I will punch them in the face. They've irrevocably tainted the word feminist for me. They're anti-men in a bad way, they're transphobic, and they seem motivated by a desire for vengeance rather than a desire for equality.

So as others have said, if you mean feminist in its traditional definition of 'believer in equal rights for women', then I'd say a lot of men these days are feminist. But I wish there were another word for it, that doesn't carry so much baggage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Radical feminist tends to be a label pinned on by others. Not all people labelled radical feminists are anti-men. Some are Marxists, for example. Feminism is not just about equal rights. For example, in a slave-owning society, would a feminist be happy if women had the right to own slaves and were treated as legally equal to male slave-owners?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's like letting the fox in among the chickens.

Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

To let a man declare himself able to speak for women in overturning these systems of masculinist control over women would be farcical were not an outrage against justice.

Negate the oppression in my second paragraph and we might be able to talk about this odd phantasy, the male feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Kelly Alves, what a wonderful place the land of waves and seagulls, football crowds, and churchbells must be. And, what wonderful friends you must have.

They and you are to be encouraged. It's delightful that they might be called TittyEnthusiasts or pro-feminists or supportive men.

But the facts of my second paragraph are not in dispute. These are matters of life and death.

Men cannot speak for women under the protective cover of the word feminism.

Niteowl, I applaud you leniency. Certainly not all men do these thing; however, they are without doubt a masculine enterprise. To say otherwise is to call white black and and darkness light.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, there are just as many women in the world who benefit from and perpetuate gender inequality as men. Sexism will continue to exist as long as there women in the world who pride themselves on tearing down other women.I accept the term "Male feminists" the same way I accept the term "female misogynist," because both exist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Ironically, my local MP is a right-wing woman, whose position on various issues for women is well, reactionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.

---

If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Kelly Alves, what a wonderful place the land of waves and seagulls, football crowds, and churchbells must be. And, what wonderful friends you must have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.

---

If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.

---

That was my understanding as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I too was thinking of parallels to the Civil Rights movement in the US, which needed white people in Congress to advocate for the rights of black people. White people can't and shouldn't try to speak for black people, and men can't and shouldn't try to speak for women, but white people and men had damned well better learn to speak out in favor of equality for those unlike themselves.

---

quote:

---

Without taking back what I said about my general [good]experience in cons, I can also say that I don't feel I really knew what the term "misogyny" meant until I became a gamer. That was the first time I met men who seemed to genuinely get off on making other women uncomfortable, and (Here's the real problem, I feel) men who were equally uncomfortable, but for some reason didn't have the stones to speak up and say, "Enough." The only evidence I had for a long time of anyone's disapproval was quietly whispered post game things like "Don't let X get to you, he only talks about wet pussy to get a rise out of you." Any attempt by women to set boundaries lead to immediate rebuke-- of the women. Those incidents happened in private homes, among (boy, what generous word I am about to use ) friends.What killed me is that all of the women in the group had been dragged there by their boyfriends, who expected their partners to adapt themselves to their gaming lifestyle, whatever their own interests might be.

And even the nicest of these guys shared the same weird trait-- when the women did get enthused- because gaming is fun, dammit-- and began creating kick ass characters, the guys would suddenly want to switch modules to one the women had never played. It was like they wanted us there, but always two steps behind.

OK, following my own advice, I will now relate the most awesome gaming story in my repertoire. One of the guys in our group wanted to run Shadowrun, and the pre-designed story he wanted to run began with a gang rape that we (a group of cops) were to encounter, He pulled the two women at that game aside ahead of time, and explained what was coming. He said if the motif bothered us at all he would alter it a bit. Because of his sensitivity, we trusted him enough to give him the green light.

So he sat down, and began leading us through the game. "Ok you guys are patrolling the street, and you look down an alley to see four teenage boys raping a girl."

Player Josh:"I get in line."

The other woman and I got up and walked out. My husband said nothing, I remember looking up at one of the guys in the group and hearing him say to me! "Oh come on! and angrily sighing. As we left the room we heard the book slam, but we pretty much thought we'd been successfully bullied out of the game.
Two minutes later Josh came in and mumbled one of those "I'm sorry if I caused offense" kind of apologies. We accepted (such as we could) but declined to return to the game.
Two minutes later the GM (Brian)came back. He was spitting mad. "Did he apologize?" he said, "Because I refuse to run the game unless he apologized."

So, according to my ex, that slam we heard was Brian slamming the book hard and saying, "That's it, game over."

And basically, one story like that can heal so much. I hardly ever think about Josh anymore, but I grew to really love Brian.

---

The other woman in this story told it at a D&D convention workshop on women in gaming, to hissing from the crowd. Another guy spoke up in disgust about a Dungeon Master he'd worked with who made a point to throw female player characters into rape scenarios, as he felt this was the realistic way women would be treated (in a fantasy based game. ) The speaker and his male game mates got together privately and came up with a strategy, and the next time the DM pulled that stunt, they all shut their books in unison, stood up, and walked out.

He got prolonged applause from every man and woman in that room.

So, if we don't need male feminists, why didn't it work when me and my girlfriend walked out of the game? Why did the other men in the group turn to me and her and hiss at us, if all it takes is for women to stand up?

And why such a strong reaction to that guy's story from the crowd?

Think about the video clip. And think about what Ruth said.

[ 26. August 2013, 01:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
The Silent Acolyte: What I see in this thread is the difference between "speak for" and "speak up for".
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yes, exactly.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I prefer speak in unison with, but yes.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
In places where only male voices will be heard, male voices need to be heard. If people like TSA shut them down by such blatant shaming, then nobody's voice will be heard in those places.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you have an idiosyncratic idea of the connotations of the word "feminist". What's wrong with this dictionary definition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, there are just as many women in the world who benefit from and perpetuate gender inequality as men. Sexism will continue to exist as long as there women in the world who pride themselves on tearing down other women.I accept the term "Male feminists" the same way I accept the term "female misogynist," because both exist.

---

quote:

---

It is just as exasperating for a moderate, humanist feminist to have to apologize for "All men are oppressors" or "All sex is rape"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pegasus:
Some men do these things. Plenty of women do too. I don't think your analysis stands.

(I am a woman, a feminist and a lesbian. Impeccable credentials, surely?)

---

quote:

---

Pegasus postulates:

1. Women are the perpetrators of rape.
2. Women cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.
3. Women deny women the vote.
4. Women prohibit girls and women from education.
5. Women deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital.
6. Women insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son.
7. Women restrict a woman's right to control her fertility.
8. Women perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The male feminist is essential to negating the oppression your second paragraph. Women can argue and work against oppression till the cows come home and it won't make any difference unless we convince at least some men to be feminists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A black community leader told her it was not her fight...<and the rest>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe that's why I don't have such a problem with my California brothers carry the torch. I know I am not losing anything by letting them do so, and that women all over have much to gain from doing so.

Some men (and women) out there simply will not hear certain gender-related information unless they hear it coming from a man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
The Silent Acolyte: What I see in this thread is the difference between "speak for" and "speak up for".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I prefer speak in unison with, but yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
In places where only male voices will be heard, male voices need to be heard. If people like TSA shut them down by such blatant shaming, then nobody's voice will be heard in those places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Puhleeze Louise.

Critique what I say, not what your tender male ego thinks it hears.

It is your masculinist heritage that is shameful. By all indications you and Kelly Alves's boy-buddies are top o' the charts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Puhleeze Louise.

Critique what I say, not what your tender male ego thinks it hears.

It is your masculinist heritage that is shameful. By all indications you and Kelly Alves's boy-buddies are top o' the charts.

---

I got all the "men are inherently evil" bullshit from my ex-wife that I could stand. If you can't talk about this without coming across as a finger-pointing hatemonger, then I can't talk with you about it. If it makes you sleep better at night to paint me as a raging sexist, then (a) you're an idiot, and (b) knock yourself out.

Also there's just a little irony in all your statements about how men can't say anything, isn't there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
you're an idiot

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

Every instance of above should have the word some in front of it. Yes, some men do vile things to women, but there have been and continue to be men that stand in solidarity with women. I agree with Kelly on not white gloving that solidarity.

---

quote:

---

“with one week of the month more or less sick and unfit for hard work”, she was intellectually handicapped, “when nature spends in one direction, she must economise in another”. In general terms, “she does not easily regain the vital energy that was recklessly spent on learning... if a woman attempts to achieve the educational standards of men... she will lack the energy necessary for childbearing and rearing”.

---

quote:

---

‘Mental taxation in a woman can lead to atrophy, mania, or worse - leave her incapacitated as a mother. This is not an opinion. It is a fact of nature.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
The Silent Acolyte: What I see in this thread is the difference between "speak for" and "speak up for".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think feminism is a philosophical position that has certain implications for the position of women. One doesn't need to be a woman to be a feminist any more than one has to be working class to be a Marxist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leaf:
The Silent Acolyte: What I see in this thread is the difference between "speak for" and "speak up for".

---

It also presupposes that feminism consists of either.

I think feminism is a philosophical position that has certain implications for the position of women. One doesn't need to be a woman to be a feminist any more than one has to be working class to be a Marxist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think you have an idiosyncratic idea of the connotations of the word "feminist". What's wrong with this dictionary definition?

---

It's not idiosyncratic at all, as a trivial amount of research would show. Your proffered definition only begs the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

If it's a trivial amount of research, maybe you can provide the results?

My definition doesn't "beg the question" - it's evidence that in common usage, the term "feminist" doesn't imply "one who presumes to speak for women." Do you have an authoritative source that says otherwise? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
The rather limited experience that I've had of the Fawcett Society certainly doesn't lead me to the conclusion that it is 'staffed by Anti-Men' people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
AHEM

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
you're an idiot

---

Desist.

-RooK
Outside of Hell, and so are you.

---

Right, sorry. Forgot where I was.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
However, nothing I've said can be contorted into anything remotely like "men are inherently evil." They are not. I'm not a dualist.

---

quote:

---

Simply put: Go Back and Read for Comprehension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.

---

If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.

---

That was my understanding as well.

---

Older women may commit the slicing-up, but is that actually what's at issue? It's the why of the practice that matters. The why in this case being that women must be rendered culturally "fit" for matrimony and must be "cured" of their innate lustfulness, tendency to be unfaithful, and their animalistic sensuality; otherwise they'll breed with anybody at the drop of a hat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Man here, I agree with TSA. Paraphrasing something I saw someone say recently, men might go to the meeting, but we don't get a vote. Once men are called feminists, men will start trying to define what feminism is allowed to be. That's the nature of privilege. For proof of this, look no further than the fact that the denial of men's assumed inborn right to total cultural access/relevance/dominance seems more disconcerting to some posters on this thread than the (ongoing) crimes which motivate that denial. That there should be places men can't speak, can't assume authority, can't bestow or deny approval, seems wrong and disturbing, even to men who would never wish to claim such an authority. Even to men who don't realise that that's what they're doing. Because equality feels like confinement to the privileged.

There's also an undertow of sheer petted, childish spite in this: 'if you don't let us be called what we want to be called, we won't help you and you'll fail'. A third reason is the difficulty men have understanding oppression as a historical phenomenon, as something ongoing and definable. It's not a figure of speech. It's not rhetorical. It's happening now. One poster has suggested that if you don't let men call themselves feminists, then you're paving the way for men to be 'abused in female dominant societies'. Because women can't be trusted to think for themselves. Because without male approval nothing makes sense.

Since I started writing this post there's been a post by one man asking a woman to justify her definition of feminism to him using an 'authoritative' source, and another whining about being expected to care at all.

So yeah — there are a whole bunch of good reasons for men not to arrogate to themselves the title 'feminist'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.

---

If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.

---

That was my understanding as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I suspect that male feminist is a title to be earned not a position to be claimed.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

That would suggest that novelists can't write about the opposite sex...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I suspect that male feminist is a title to be earned not a position to be claimed.

Jengie

---

I might agree with that-- Curiosity Killed...'s example is spot on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Since I started writing this post there's been a post by one man asking a woman to justify her definition of feminism to him using an 'authoritative' source ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Would it be fair to describe these men who supported in that situation as male feminists?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
the older women who carry it out do so because they believe this is what women's bodies should be like.
Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
the older women who carry it out do so because they believe this is what women's bodies should be like.
Moo

---

Not exactly; they believe this is what married women's bodies should be like. Failure to carry the procedure out allegedly renders a woman ineligible for marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure which meetings you have in mind, when you say that men might go, but not vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

I used to write about gender, sexuality and patriarchy, and often my essay was in a collection written mostly by women. I didn't mind, and they didn't seem to mind, but maybe you think that that was wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

So I'm allowed to say that and Dave W. is not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
You really don't recognise the gambit where a man disqualifies a woman's viewpoint from consideration unless she justifies herself to him with reference to authorities he'll accept? It's not respectful, and the pretense of being 'reasonable' is how this stuff works. Of course the intention of shit like 'doesn't say that in the dictionary, lol' is to demean and silence argument. Now he'll probably point out he didn't say 'lol'. Because every minute spent on this petitfogging crap is a minute invested in maintaining position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And the more I think about it, the more I think your view is complete crap -- you are telling people what they can and cannot say based solely on whether they are male or female. Can't get much more sexist than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
When you give a list of all the evils that "men" do, what is one to conclude? Perhaps you do not know that when you say "men" without a qualifier, in the English language, this means "all men." For instance, when someone says, "Women are weaker than men" they don't mean some women are weaker than some men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
If you think of yourself as a male ally of feminism, it seems to me the correct response to being told it's inappropriate for you to call yourself a feminist is to take that on board, not to point out smirkingly that you own the language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
We're Not All Like That.

---

The women here are being the most vociferous in defense of using feminist to describe men as well as women. The exact opposite of the point your link makes.
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Of course, even so it's stretching it a bit to say 'most men commit rape' or 'the typical man does genital mutilation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
We're Not All Like That.

---

The women here are being the most vociferous in defense of using feminist to describe men as well as women. The exact opposite of the point your link makes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would suggest that novelists can't write about the opposite sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Of course, even so it's stretching it a bit to say 'most men commit rape' or 'the typical man does genital mutilation'.

---

Precisely.

There has been so much nonsense on this thread but let's start by correcting this one:

The majority of Female genital mutilation is carried out by women.
(source)

AFZ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Porridge

Do you believe women developed the idea of Eunuchs?

Because by the logic of your previous post that would be the case.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
When you give a list of all the evils that "men" do, what is one to conclude? Perhaps you do not know that when you say "men" without a qualifier, in the English language, this means "all men." For instance, when someone says, "Women are weaker than men" they don't mean some women are weaker than some men.

---

I don't think that's quite true. 'Women are weaker than men,' means 'most women are weaker than most men,' or 'the typical or average woman is weaker than the typical or average man', or something of the sort; rather than 'all women are weaker than all men.'

Of course, even so it's stretching it a bit to say 'most men commit rape' or 'the typical man does genital mutilation'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Is this thread about male feminists or are people going to discuss FGM? Because if it is the latter, then I think a lot of young women in Africa would thank you for doing so extensively and responsibly, rather than partially.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Turns out that even feminist cant can be a tool of the patriarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Turns out that even feminist cant can be a tool of the patriarchy.

---

See,TSA hinted at this, too, and I am going to have to say it seems to be simply out of my experience. I can't imagine (as she said) any Republican pundit I know, male or female, voluntarily associating themselves with the word "feminist." The rhetoric I have heard from Republican pundits usually uses the words "feminist", "liberal", and "socialist" as interchangeable terms for "bad." So if there has been some sort of patriarchal dominance trend in people co-opting feminist language, I would humbly request examples so I can intelligently respond to the concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

And I can't really decide if it amuses or annoys me (scratch that, definitely the latter), that in so stridently defending the "feminist mystique" men (TSA and Zach) are asserting their authority over and invalidating the experience of women (RuthW and Kelly). Turns out that even feminist cant can be a tool of the patriarchy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Is this thread about male feminists or are people going to discuss FGM? Because if it is the latter, then I think a lot of young women in Africa would thank you for doing so extensively and responsibly, rather than partially.

---

Luckily redirecting thread participants is not your job. What is your opinion of the recent developments in the discussion of male feminists, by the way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
...so your derisive paradox fails to prove a point that doesn't make sense anyway, with data that isn't valid. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
I wrote "patriarchy" there meaning TSA and Zach's implicit definition of it -- ie, something that any man, no matter how well-meaning or fair-minded, cannot escape from simply by virtue of the privilege that his male-ness affords him. Not your much more sane definition above. Apologies for the lack of clarity -- I meant it as a sort of tongue-in-cheek jape at their expense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Please don't be upset that I can play your game too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That would suggest that novelists can't write about the opposite sex.

---

Indeed. I write fiction, short stories these days, though once I was pestering TV production companies with scripts. Came close to writing for series a couple of times, but... y'know... showbiz, it didn't work out.

But I did sometimes get feedback. Always, as it happened, from female script execs who took the trouble not just to send a 'no way, sod off' slip. And the commonest crit I would get would be to the effect that, my female characters were convincing, but somehow the males didn't stack up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
the older women who carry it out do so because they believe this is what women's bodies should be like.
Moo

---

Not exactly; they believe this is what married women's bodies should be like. Failure to carry the procedure out allegedly renders a woman ineligible for marriage.

Where do you suppose such beliefs spring from?

Do you imagine that, back in prehistory, the practice started this way: Urneg turns to her daughter Amwat one afternoon and says, "I've got an idea. As you're likely to begin your monthlies soon, let's slice out your clitoris with a sharpened clamshell tomorrow, as it will make you so much more attractive to prospective husbands."

Yeah. Right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge
Older women may commit the slicing-up, but is that actually what's at issue? It's the why of the practice that matters. The why in this case being that women must be rendered culturally "fit" for matrimony and must be "cured" of their innate lustfulness, tendency to be unfaithful, and their animalistic sensuality; otherwise they'll breed with anybody at the drop of a hat.

---

I agree that this is the underlying reason for the practice, but the older women who carry it out do so because they believe this is what women's bodies should be like. They do not grasp the underlying reasons for the practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Well I think you should look closer at what you are saying. You are saying women would not dream up a method of making sex unpleasant for other women. Yet a eunuch were created by men and not just made sex unpleasant they made it impossible. Well if men do the second, why may not females do the first. Fairs, fair after all and power over those of the same sex can produce nasty behaviour in both sexes.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I had noticed that phrase was problematic (though not for the reason you're raising), and I was going to change it to 'ally of feminists', but the edit window elapsed, and I didn't want to post three times in a row.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
We're Not All Like That.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

We're not talking about cars. There are plenty of people who hold the opinion that all men are responsible for sexism, and that all white people are responsible for racism. There are plenty of people who disagree with that. So in this discussion, the difference is actually relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
I wrote "patriarchy" there meaning TSA and Zach's implicit definition of it -- ie, something that any man, no matter how well-meaning or fair-minded, cannot escape from simply by virtue of the privilege that his male-ness affords him. Not your much more sane definition above. Apologies for the lack of clarity -- I meant it as a sort of tongue-in-cheek jape at their expense.

---

At the expense of people whose points you don't understand, using an 'implicit definition' based on your incomprehension, in order to deride them for speaking. What cheer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Please don't be upset that I can play your game too.

---

Do stop trying to poison the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
I wrote "patriarchy" there meaning TSA and Zach's implicit definition of it -- ie, something that any man, no matter how well-meaning or fair-minded, cannot escape from simply by virtue of the privilege that his male-ness affords him. Not your much more sane definition above. Apologies for the lack of clarity -- I meant it as a sort of tongue-in-cheek jape at their expense.

---

At the expense of people whose points you don't understand, using an 'implicit definition' based on your incomprehension, in order to deride them for speaking. What cheer.

---

Bollocks. I'm deriding the content of your (collective) speech, not your act of speaking. Your unwillingness to recognise the difference is what makes your position so worthy of derision.

---

So glad that I started this. Carry on and goodnight.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(stepping over bun fight)

This is definitely what a feminist looks like
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
argona wrote:


I'm very curious about the experience of people posting here. Men in particular - I wonder, am I just an oddball in feeling crushed by the template our world presses on us, or do more of us feel that way? Any time I've been relieved of the pressure to conform to type, perhaps most obviously when I was looking after our small children full time, I've found myself - quite undeliberately, it felt - getting more 'feminine' by common standards. To the extent that it seemed to become obvious, I'd even hear myself referred to as 'that lady' on occasions though I wasn't in drag! Maybe because I had children with me, or something about my demeanour.

I find this interesting. When I was working in gender studies, we were interested in the fluidity of gender, as you outline here. Of course, for some people, their gender (I mean here masculinity and femininity stuff), seems very stable and secure.

Yet others experience shifts in gender. And there seems to be tons of repressed stuff, which can pop out unexpectedly. I did a little study of Hemingway a few years ago, who at the end of his life wrote a strange novel, 'The Garden of Eden', with androgynous characters and gender changing. Anyway, some biographers see it as evidence of H's ambivalence about gender, so his ultra-macho was defensive.

In therapy, it is sometimes called the contrasexual - the idea being that some men crave the feminine in themselves, look for images of it, and ditto women, the masculine. Going a bit o/t.

Damn, I wish I wasn't old. I can't do research now really.
 

---

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :
 
Bun fight? No, just belated sniping retorts at my attempt to keep things on course. I withdrew. Are you genuinely unable to discern the difference between my posts and the chortling nonsense I've been quoted responding to?
 

---

Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
Bun fight? No, just belated sniping retorts at my attempt to keep things on course. I withdrew. Are you genuinely unable to discern the difference between my posts and the chortling nonsense I've been quoted responding to?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
WHOA!
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
argona

I knew I'd forgotten something! We were talking about novelists writing about the opposite sex. One of the most famous examples is Becky Sharp in 'Vanity Fair', who, Thackery said, was based on himself.

But I think some novelists are hopeless at the opposite sex, but some are not. I suppose you think of Anna Karenina (Tolstoy) and Mme. Bovary (Flaubert), also Thomas Cromwell (Mantel), and Casaubon (George Eliot).

What is interesting is to think of novelists who can't write about their own sex, and I am struggling now. I was thinking about Lawrence, but he couldn't write about anybody really!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Here's the thing for me, personally. (and I think I just figured it out.) When someone starts the "we're not like that" argument when nobody has actually said "You're all like that," the thought that crosses my mind is "This person is trying to stop me from talking about things that challenge his/ her comfort level."
[..]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Coming back to your original point, I suppose I do find "You're all like that" beyond my comfort level, because I don't think I am "like that" and find it uncomfortable to be accused of things I don't think I'm guilty of. I also think that because I have a greater responsibility for my own behaviour than I do for someone else's, my instinct is to respond to what for me personally is the most important thing, which is whether I am guilty of the sin in question, and what I can to to remedy my behaviour.

Which, I suppose, is "making it all about me".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
argona

What is interesting is to think of novelists who can't write about their own sex, and I am struggling now. I was thinking about Lawrence, but he couldn't write about anybody really!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
By 'petitfogging crap' I meant the original dictionary reference and request for 'authoritative' backup, not its discussion.

---

quote:

---

Once men are called feminists, men will start trying to define what feminism is allowed to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
TSA isn't introducing a new definition. Most of the other men I know who try to be feminist allies would not describe themselves as feminists, though they would probably describe themselves in relation to feminism and/or feminists (as I did with the phrase 'feminist allies').

---

quote:

---

Most men, even if they are progressive in every other way, balk at calling themselves feminist, and plenty of men who support equal pay and reproductive rights still think feminism itself is ugly, "strident," or lame. So what a man calls himself probably doesn't matter too much — as long as he's capable of confronting a problem that he might be a part of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The experience of racism or sexism is the experience of women, or black people, or whichever other group is being discriminated against, certainly. But if we are discussing how to reduce racism in the US, then it is "about" white people in the sense that they are the people who have to do the changing. Similarly, to fix sexism, you have to make men not be sexist.

No, that's not the whole story - there are a whole set of ingrained societal attitudes about the role of men and women that are held by "everyone", but at least as far as direct sexism or racism goes, to fix it, you have to change the people who are being sexist and/or racist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The difference is that women aren't a minority. The perpetuation of those sexist attitudes depends heavily on women buying into them in a way that the perpetuation of racism doesn't depend on members of racial minorities buying in. So I'm with Kelly on the existence of misogynistic women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Honest Ron, Kelly, seriously we got it on the hosting thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I think Jezebel has a good take:

quote:

---

Most men, even if they are progressive in every other way, balk at calling themselves feminist, and plenty of men who support equal pay and reproductive rights still think feminism itself is ugly, "strident," or lame. So what a man calls himself probably doesn't matter too much — as long as he's capable of confronting a problem that he might be a part of.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Don't know quite what I've started here.

---

A really exciting discussion! Thank you!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Sexist social structures exist to keep women "in their place," but that place is never as separate as the separate places produced by racism -- if only because sexist men want to get laid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think we're back to the relative power thing. If we take as the starting point a completely male-dominated, sexist society: men in all positions of power, nobody will hire a woman for any job except cleaning, nursing and elementary school teaching, and won't hire a married woman at all, then it's hard to place blame on a woman who goes along with it - she has few other options.

---

Picking up on Kelly's solidarity thing, though, I keep thinking of Lysistrata.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Girls are coached pretty much from the time they can read or write that nothing they accomplish in life will be quite as important as getting a boyfriend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
I think there's been a tendency, over the last few decades, for people to insist on the singularity of their own perceived identity. In effect to fence it off and put up a sign saying "You'll never understand. Keep out and shut the fuck up." I'd say it's too strong to say that anyone thereby becomes complicit in their own oppression but I do think it's simply wrong, and no way forward for anyone.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: As soon as I see 'men are ...' and 'women are ...', I reach for my gun, metaphorically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: As soon as I see 'men are ...' and 'women are ...', I reach for my gun, metaphorically.

---

Tssk, typical male reaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I think one problem with this thread is the sweeping generalizations.

Moo

---

Yep.

Remember, all sweeping generalisations are false.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
slight tangent/
The role of the drill sergeant in An Officer and a Gentleman was originally offered to Jack Nicholson. When Louis Gossett Jr. was cast, the intent was to do a rewrite of the character. He informed the writers this was not necessary. My point? Whilst there are certainly characters with whom it is correct to alter the portrayal depending on race, gender, etc., much of what is done is more a twisted perception than a necessity. /slight tangent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

Plique, Fëanor, that is more than enough on the personal attacks. Play the ball not the man, or head to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

Plique, Fëanor, that is more than enough on the personal attacks. Play the ball not the man, or head to Hell.

---

I was the one under attack. Why am I to be treated as though my posts were no better than a troll's interference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Girls are coached pretty much from the time they can read or write that nothing they accomplish in life will be quite as important as getting a boyfriend.

---

No.

Many girls are coached that way, but others are not. I grew up thinking that if I found a nice man to marry, that would be good. However, if I didn't find a nice man, it would be much better to stay single.

I think one problem with this thread is the sweeping generalizations.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:


I'm not saying women don't get other, more positive messages, and that all women buy into the frenemy thing, but the pull is powerful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I agree, Kelly.

All I would wish to add is that there is also peer group pressure, which can be particularly troublesome during teen years especially.

---

Yeah,that might be the worst-- because it can often railroad even very good modeling from sensible adults.

One older role model of mine is hugely competitive with other women, and after hearing enough of her story I am convinced that she didn't necessarily get this from the very strong, solid women in her family life, but from her years in sorority. Her particular sorority, if you need clarification.

Maybe what I am suggesting (as I process ) is that we wise old crones need to actively get involved with young women who are not necessarily just relatives, and be aware of ourselves as models of female solidarity wherever we are.

[ 27. August 2013, 19:16: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 

quote:

---

Honest Ron, Kelly, seriously we got it on the hosting thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

quote:

---

Maybe what I am suggesting (as I process [Big Grin] ) is that we wise old crones need to actively get involved with young women who are not necessarily just relatives, and be aware of ourselves as models of female solidarity wherever we are.

---

I think all children and adolescents benefit from regular interaction with inspiring people of all ages.

Don't underestimate the powerful effect that could have on the boys too - an interesting and engaging mature woman can help head off the build up of negative stereotypes in their minds too. In this case I am thinking of the beneficial effect that could have on their future interactions with the girls in addition to the direct inspiration of the girls. And of course the boys benefit directly too, not in competition but as well as. It seems silly to ignore the potential for a win-win-win scenario - they come along pretty infrequently.

Things get more complex once they become young women I'm sure. As a parent of two girls, I would have to say that's the stage when they need to be able to fly free, so a parent's insight is less use even though they need to know you are still there. But wise voices in their new circles of acquaintances could surely have a part to play here.

Just thinking about it, historically many of these things would have been easier in less-mobile times with more extended families. Though of course it's the same route that derelict behaviour patterns can infiltrate themselves in by. I doubt if you can pursue the one without the risk of the other, though.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Quite right about all of that-- my statement was in reference to the thread of conversation specifically involving young women learning to see each other as resources. That really needs modeling from other women.

I only directed the phrase "wise old crones" at you because 1. At the glorious age of 44 I can claim the title and 2. I mistook you for Lamb Chopped.

[ 27. August 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I'm not really up in crone-ology, but aren't you a bit young for that title?

To head back towards the original subject. I would still say I don't think what men call themselves is wildly important. I hear the opposing view, but surely feminism by now has a sufficiently strong identity to survive the inevitable few men who might call themselves feminists but have deleterious intent. The future of feminism isn't going to depend on what men call themselves.

It will depend on what future women do and call themselves, though that's another matter entirely.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I would still say I don't think what men call themselves is wildly important. I hear the opposing view, but surely feminism by now has a sufficiently strong identity to survive the inevitable few men who might call themselves feminists but have deleterious intent. The future of feminism isn't going to depend on what men call themselves.

It will depend on what future women do and call themselves, though that's another matter entirely.

---

YES.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
It's like letting the fox in among the chickens.

Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

To let a man declare himself able to speak for women in overturning these systems of masculinist control over women would be farcical were not an outrage against justice.

Negate the oppression in my second paragraph and we might be able to talk about this odd phantasy, the male feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And the more I think about it, the more I think your view is complete crap -- you are telling people what they can and cannot say based solely on whether they are male or female. Can't get much more sexist than that.

---

quote:

---

In fact, the entire aim of all that kind of anti-discrimination work is to encourage people to have MORE insight about people unlike themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The expectation that we are perfectly free to think and speak as we wish is just another imposition of patriarchal culture. Furthermore, men have been privileged by patriarchy whether they have sexist attitudes or not, and it is patriarchy again that makes men think they can escape complicity in that. Thus, we have all these rather unseemly denials of personally participating in rape and abuse, when precisely zero accusations have been issued against any person here.

In reality, patriarchy shapes and determines male wills just as much as female ones, and both have their own work to free themselves of it. We've see hints of this fact when we talked about female genital mutilation. "Women are forced to accept aspects of patriarchy for themselves to survive male dominated culture," or something like that. There is no problem with accepting that women can be robbed of agency in patriarchy. In what ways, then, are the voices of men shaped and limited? In what ways do these limitations continue to diminish female voices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."

---

quote:

---

What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."

---

We'd like to, but we're told to STFU by people like TSA and Zach82.

---

I was remembering an article I read on .. io9? I think- a male Scifi writer was expressing hope that the scifi/ fantasy genre (comics books and movies) would evolve beyond stereotypical female characters whose activity mainly revolved around making the hero look brilliant in some way-- whether by being a trophy for him, a victim for him to rescue, or a badass sidekick that was never quite badass enough to have her own agenda.

The writer (can't remember his name, but my geek friends who passed the article on uniformly oohed and ahhed at his cred) was immediately challenged by, like two of the usual idiots who said "the fantasy genre was created as soft core porn for teenage boys, and if girls don't like that, they have to accept that it wasn't written for them."

The next-- I'd say, four to six posts shouted down that argument, in detailed, obviously well-thought out ways.

And then I saw the first post by a woman.

Here's what the guys were saying(in a nutshell)-- soft-core porn does not really compensate for tired-ass, predictable characters and storylines, because in the genres of scifi and fantasy, words like "tired-ass" and "predictable" should not be even entering your mind. If all you care about is wet dream material, pick up Hustler. The evolution of complex, multi-dimensional female characters in scifi/ fantasy, with motives and functions other than what (presumably) the "average" 14 year-old boy would want them to have), could only improve the genres all around.

This is what the guys were saying! And they also said they were insulted by the first couple posters' assumption that all men liked their women inferior. Or that all men viewed scifi/ fantasy as exclusively man- serving genres.

So my observation is-- once upon a time you might see one guy making a comment like that, with six geek women trying their best to say the same thing, but getting laughed at by a group of self-supporting idiots. That one guy who tried gave another guy permission to speak up- now more guys who might agree are seeing that example. After years of watching this kind of discussion evolve, particularly in the "geek" community, the trend I spot is that, when more guys feel comfortable expressing what they think, the dialogue becomes more balanced.

Because all women are not alike and all guys are not alike, and feminist challenge helps highlight those facts. And this benefits both men and women.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The slasher film has been analyzed in a rather similar way - it often ends up with a female heroine, often called now the Final Girl - who is the only one who can deal with the serial killer. See also the Alien films, with the heroine, Ripley.

Often traditional males are shown as useless also.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Maybe that's why I am more of a horror fan than a scifi fan-- women are allowed to be nitty-gritty and self- protective and have their hair a mess and dirt smeared on their faces and to think of themselves and their own survival and kick the crap out of the bad guys and these things all are positive.

Come to think of it, the whole "Paranormal Activity" franchise seemed to have a common motif of men fucking up by saying 'tut, tut, little lady, stop imagining things,you don't know what you are talking about' every time the Bad Shit-o-meter creeps to red.

One of the thing the author of the article I reference said, though, is that you can give a lot of examples of multifaceted, complex female characters, but the majority of them will be written by men. While it is a step in the right direction, he said, you still are not getting the female experience into the canon, you are getting an expanded version of the male experience-- sub headed the male experience of the female experience. He flat out said the solution was for Marvel and DC and such folks to get a few women script writers on their team. Period.

[ 28. August 2013, 18:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
I had read seekingsister's story a little differently, Kelly. She wondered why they moved - your examples were already there and stayed there. They would fall in my "boneheaded idiot" class.

I thought it relevant because a lot of (mostly) men benefit from the status quo but may not realise it. That's what the wretched phrase "check your privilege" was supposed to address. Such men might reasonably be expected to contain those who would be receptive to a project that improves the lot of everyone. That was the original plan. If they have moved en bloc in the opposite direction, well - maybe they are indeed just crass and conservative, and maybe they are just going with the boneheaded idiots. But maybe not. And I have seen that behaviour many times before from both men and women. You could even look for examples on this thread.

[ 28. August 2013, 18:36: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Ok, maybe my story only applied tangentially-- a couple posts just sparked my memory of that story, and maybe seekingsister's post wasn't the best choice to spin off of. Take what works and leave the rest.

And sorry, ss if I obfuscated your point. I pretty much agree with you.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."

---

We'd like to, but we're told to STFU by people like TSA and Zach82.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, grow up. Absolutely no one said you or any other man couldn't support or make things better for women.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We've both pretty consistently said that men should and must speak to support feminist ends. We can hardly be expected to argue with your defensive paranoia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We've both pretty consistently said that men should and must speak to support feminist ends. We can hardly be expected to argue with your defensive paranoia.

---

Why do you think it is that on this thread, we've got men arguing with other men about whether men can be feminists? It's not that I don't think men are entitled to an opinion on the subject. I just think it's odd that the men on this thread who are arguing that a man can't be a feminist are not listening to the women.

So would you knock it off? If you don't want to call yourself a feminist, that's okay with me. It's also okay with me if men who are generally trying to do the right thing with respect to women's issues call themselves feminists. They might not get it exactly right all the time, but that's okay, too. And if I want to call a man a feminist, I'm going to call him a feminist. I don't think I need men telling me whether I should do that or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It would be nice if you could actually look at the arguments proposed instead of dropping the line "you are wrong because the women say so."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It would be nice if you could actually look at the arguments proposed instead of dropping the line "you are wrong because the women say so."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, last week I attended the Northern Working Class Ex-Macho but Hey Fucking Sensitive Football-Loving but also Like Show Tunes (Feminine Side), Men's Group. Well, it was rowdy, but once we'd sung a few Barry Manilow tunes, we calmed down, and had a circle jerk. Bliss.

---

 

---

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of the thing the author of the article I reference said, though, is that you can give a lot of examples of multifaceted, complex female characters, but the majority of them will be written by men. While it is a step in the right direction, he said, you still are not getting the female experience into the canon, you are getting an expanded version of the male experience-- sub headed the male experience of the female experience. He flat out said the solution was for Marvel and DC and such folks to get a few women script writers on their team. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe that's why I am more of a horror fan than a scifi fan-- women are allowed to be nitty-gritty and self- protective and have their hair a mess and dirt smeared on their faces and to think of themselves and their own survival and kick the crap out of the bad guys and these things all are positive.

Come to think of it, the whole "Paranormal Activity" franchise seemed to have a common motif of men fucking up by saying 'tut, tut, little lady, stop imagining things,you don't know what you are talking about' every time the Bad Shit-o-meter creeps to red.

One of the thing the author of the article I reference said, though, is that you can give a lot of examples of multifaceted, complex female characters, but the majority of them will be written by men. While it is a step in the right direction, he said, you still are not getting the female experience into the canon, you are getting an expanded version of the male experience-- sub headed the male experience of the female experience. He flat out said the solution was for Marvel and DC and such folks to get a few women script writers on their team. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
It would be nice if you could actually look at the arguments proposed instead of dropping the line "you are wrong because the women say so."

---

Either your arguments are shaped by patriarchy, or they aren't.
If they aren't, then in some ways male arguments are not shaped and limited by patriarchy.
If they are, then your argument is self-refuting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousetheif:
"If you would just read my mansplaining, you'd know why I am right and you are wrong, little lady."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
We've both pretty consistently said that men should and must speak to support feminist ends. We can hardly be expected to argue with your defensive paranoia.

---

Why do you think it is that on this thread, we've got men arguing with other men about whether men can be feminists? It's not that I don't think men are entitled to an opinion on the subject. I just think it's odd that the men on this thread who are arguing that a man can't be a feminist are not listening to the women.

So would you knock it off? If you don't want to call yourself a feminist, that's okay with me. It's also okay with me if men who are generally trying to do the right thing with respect to women's issues call themselves feminists. They might not get it exactly right all the time, but that's okay, too. And if I want to call a man a feminist, I'm going to call him a feminist. I don't think I need men telling me whether I should do that or not.

---

It would be nice if you could actually look at the arguments proposed instead of dropping the line "you are wrong because the women say so."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The conversation thus far:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

MT and others of both sexes: Not all men do those things and not all those things are done exclusively by men. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:
What Mousethief says is true, and there are many, many men who would never, ever do such things. However, the reality is that if a man decided he wanted to do those things, there are many, many places in the world where he could. In some places it would even be expected, and people would think him less of a man if he didn't do them. So while it's true that "not all men do those things", it is also true that "if some men want to, they can and do."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousetheif:
"If you would just read my mansplaining, you'd know why I am right and you are wrong, little lady."

---

Let me know when you actually want to have a go at engagement of the issues here.

---

quote:

---

Just don't tell me what I should do. It's not your place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The conversation thus far:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Men are the perpetrators of rape. Men cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control. They deny women the vote. Men prohibit girls and women from education. Men deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital. Men insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son. Men restrict a woman's right to control her fertility. Men perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

MT and others of both sexes: Not all men do those things and not all those things are done exclusively by men. ...

---

Me: What Mousethief says is true, and there are many, many men who would never, ever do such things. However, the reality is that if a man decided he wanted to do those things, there are many, many places in the world where he could. In some places it would even be expected, and people would think him less of a man if he didn't do them. So while it's true that "not all men do those things", it is also true that "if some men want to, they can and do."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Just don't tell me what I should do. It's not your place.

---

I am not telling you what to do, and it's really frustrating that TSA and I keep getting such outrageous accusations. I am trying to explain the limitations patriarchal cultures place on men, and why this limits their ability to participate in feminist discourse, even men who don't fondle women.

I actually conceded that we can call men feminist given certain meanings of the word, but it seems no one bothered to read that. I hope you can understand my frustration here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
One of the thing the author of the article I reference said, though, is that you can give a lot of examples of multifaceted, complex female characters, but the majority of them will be written by men. While it is a step in the right direction, he said, you still are not getting the female experience into the canon, you are getting an expanded version of the male experience-- sub headed the male experience of the female experience. He flat out said the solution was for Marvel and DC and such folks to get a few women script writers on their team. Period.

---

Absolutely, though any individual writer has to attempt to describe a whole complex world. The ring-fencers of experience would say that's just impossible, the consequence being that we could only ever write truthfully about people substantially like ourselves, leading lives similar to our own.

I'd argue that doesn't reflect real life. We don't inhabit tight, discrete sets of personality types and experience. There is overlap and idiosyncracy and in particular so much about people that is unpredictable, impossible to tie down. And as one of my writing mentors once said, everybody lies whether they know it or not. Nothing can be taken at face value.

What does a writer do? I read an interview with Roddy Doyle once, when he'd just published 'The Woman who Walked Into Doors', about a victim of domestic abuse. He said he did no prior research, wrote his first draft entirely from his own head, but then ran it past women friends, and people who worked with victims of abuse, and took their responses to heart. I do something similar, taking everything I write to a workshop, paying close attention to what's said, especially about characters very different to myself.

If this was a futile exercise, if we're all just stuck in our cells with a few like-minded and like-experienced people, incapable of truly understanding anyone who didn't match our spec, I couldn't be bothered to write. But then there'd be no point in much human life at all, which is why, though I'm talking about writing here, I don't see this as tangential. We all need to try to see the truth of life in all its complexity and unpredictability and - perhaps most difficultly of all - its inscrutability.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Just don't tell me what I should do. It's not your place.

---

I am not telling you what to do, and it's really frustrating that TSA and I keep getting such outrageous accusations. I am trying to explain the limitations patriarchal cultures place on men, and why this limits their ability to participate in feminist discourse, even men who don't fondle women.

I actually conceded that we can call men feminist given certain meanings of the word, but it seems no one bothered to read that. I hope you can understand my frustration here.

---

Yes, I do understand it. When a conversation has as many people saying as many different things as this one, and some of the things shade into other of the things, your voice can be missed, or misunderstood, or mixed up with what other people are saying, and that's frustrating.

So, do you want to try again?

I think we all agree that men aren't women, and can't speak as if they were women. Just like a white person can't speak as if they were black, and a straight person can't speak as if they were gay.

But a straight person can support equal rights for gays, and a white person can support equal rights for blacks, and a man can support equal rights for women.

There's a word that we usually use to mean "someone who supports equal rights for women": feminist. There's not a word for "someone who supports equal rights for gays" or "someone who supports equal rights for blacks."

And I think maybe that's where the problem is. Since there's not a word that includes both gays and their straight allies, nor one that includes both blacks and their white allies, maybe it seems weird or presumptuous to use the same word for women and their male allies.

But I'm not sure. What do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I find this pair of sentences bizarre. Gee, you wonder why men don't ally themselves with women's rights campaigners immediately after being told that all men as a group are responsible for sexism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.

---

What's obvious about it? You're denying basic rules of English sentence construction. If you want to add qualifiers to a definitive statement, the language has a wide range of them available for you to use.

Some men are sexist. Most men are sexist. Men tend to be sexist. Men need to be aware of their sexist tendencies. Men should guard against making assumptions. Sexists are (usually) men.

See? Even word order makes a difference.

Pick one and use it. Say what you mean. "Men are sexist" literally means that if you are a man, then you are sexist. It's no different, linguistically, to saying that dogs are carnivores. If you don't mean all men, then say so, and don't put the onus on the men to insert your 'obvious', completely non-literal meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Feel free to read 'you' as plural. One of the quirks of the English language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Feel free to read 'you' as plural. One of the quirks of the English language.

---

"You" is normally inclusive of the person you are speaking to, regardless of whether its meaning is singular or plural. "They" would make more sense in this context.

Just to clarify, it's OK for you to include me in a group of people who say all men are sexist (which I have not said), but it's not OK for them to use "men" as a catch-all to describe the perpetrators of sexism. Got it.

---

Fine. I was responding to you (seekingsister) because you (seekingsister) were the one who raised the question, why do men react badly to being told all men are sexist?

I accept that you (seekingsister) weren't one of the people who explicitly said that on this thread.

But my point is a point I'm trying to make to the WHOLE THREAD. Because you (seekingsister) aren't automatically the only person I'm talking to when I quote your (seekingsister's) post. So feel free to read my previous posts 'yous' as a generic you (thread readers). That is what I was trying to say, okay?

Now, maybe, you've got it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I would also add that I'm quite happy for my rule of "don't say men are sexist unless you mean all men" to be a universal rule, applicable to everyone.

I suppose someone out there might be terribly offended to hear this if they, in fact, have never SAID "men are sexist". But I can live with that. Take it as a warning for the future.

That's the difference between an abstract principle and a label placed on people.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.

---

If you're a woman and you're not bad at maths, then obviously "women are bad at maths" doesn't apply to you.

If you're gay and you're not promiscuous, then obviously "gays are promiscuous" doesn't apply to you.

If you're black and you're not a criminal, then obviously "blacks are criminals" doesn't apply to you.

Have I made my point yet, or shall I carry on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I feel like I'm getting piled on because I'm the only one posting in this thread this morning. I never said all men are sexist in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do you think in our society that being accused of sexism is as bad as being accused of stupidity, promiscuity, or criminality?

---

quote:

---

Kelly Alves: Oh and Roddy Doyle is probably one of the better creators of opposite gender characters I can think of-- one of the best creators of characters, period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do you think in our society that being accused of sexism is as bad as being accused of stupidity, promiscuity, or criminality?

---

The point I was making was about how stupid it is to say "if you're [Y] and not [X] then the statement 'all [Y] are [X]' doesn't apply to you".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"Men are sexist" literally means that if you are a man, then you are sexist. It's no different, linguistically, to saying that dogs are carnivores. If you don't mean all men, then say so, and don't put the onus on the men to insert your 'obvious', completely non-literal meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Do you think in our society that being accused of sexism is as bad as being accused of stupidity, promiscuity, or criminality?

---

The point I was making was about how stupid it is to say "if you're [Y] and not [X] then the statement 'all [Y] are [X]' doesn't apply to you".

---

A lazy point and poorly made. Have you heard the term "false equivalence" before?

If you're a man and you're not sexist, then come into this thread and talk about feminism and sexism. Prove the people who claim you are sexist wrong.

Don't come into the thread, pretend someone has personally insulted you, derail it to moan about your feelings, and then wonder why people find it tedious and frustrating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

The point I was making was about how stupid it is to say "if you're [Y] and not [X] then the statement 'all [Y] are [X]' doesn't apply to you".

---

A lazy point and poorly made. Have you heard the term "false equivalence" before?

---

quote:

---

If you're a man and you're not sexist, then come into this thread and talk about feminism and sexism. Prove the people who claim you are sexist wrong.

---

quote:

---

Don't come into the thread, pretend someone has personally insulted you, derail it to moan about your feelings, and then wonder why people find it tedious and frustrating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"Men are sexist" literally means that if you are a man, then you are sexist. It's no different, linguistically, to saying that dogs are carnivores. If you don't mean all men, then say so, and don't put the onus on the men to insert your 'obvious', completely non-literal meaning.

---

I don't think 'men are sexist' means 'all men are sexist' either. I think it means 'representative or typical men are sexist'. Just as the assertion that dogs are carnivores does not rule out Fluffy who belongs to vegetarians and eats a specially composed diet of quorn and beanburger.

Whether 'typical men are sexist' is significantly more defensible as an assertion in this context I don't know.

---

Okay, now this is more interesting. I have a few things to say:

1. Poor Fluffy.

2. More seriously, the reason I say "poor Fluffy" is because dogs are naturally carnivores. There could be some interesting debate to be had about whether "men are naturally" sexist would have more legs, and whether this is different to or the same as your version, "typical men are sexist".

3. The whole notion of 'typical' men is obviously problematic because it could be argued to demonstrate the exact same kind of stereotyping that we complain about when it is directed against women, against racial minorities, etc etc.

4. I would also think that the notion of 'typical' simply doesn't work in society at this point, anyway. There are very different cultures in different kinds of workplaces, for example. There are parts of society now where any kind of overt, conscious sexism at least would be considered awful, but there are other parts where it still roams fairly freely in the form of 'jokes'.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The whole notion of 'typical' men is obviously problematic because it could be argued to demonstrate the exact same kind of stereotyping that we complain about when it is directed against women, against racial minorities, etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
This is just another thread derailment based on imaginary hurt feelings by a few posters. It's getting tiring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: And I don't see anything remotely false about Marvin's equivalences. They are all of exactly the same construction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
This is just another thread derailment based on imaginary hurt feelings by a few posters. It's getting tiring.

---

If you want men to be sympathetic to the plight of women, you could start by modelling that yourself. That means, don't dismiss the hurt feelings of a group to which you don't belong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Criticizing people in particular is a personal attack and belongs in Hell.

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister
If you're a man and you're not sexist, then come into this thread and talk about feminism and sexism. Prove the people who claim you are sexist wrong.

---

quote:

---

I also (as observed in the race thread) don't understand why people act as though a general comment is a personal attack. If you're a man and you're not sexist, then obviously "men are sexist" doesn't apply to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: And I don't see anything remotely false about Marvin's equivalences. They are all of exactly the same construction.

---

Then is means you think sexism is viewed as equally negative in society as stupidity, promiscuity, and criminality.

If we were in such a world, this wouldn't even be a topic, would it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A lot of men just duck and run for cover with their own sex and gender. This, traditionally has seemed to offer protection, safety, reassurance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
This is just another thread derailment based on imaginary hurt feelings by a few posters. It's getting tiring.

---

If you want men to be sympathetic to the plight of women, you could start by modelling that yourself. That means, don't dismiss the hurt feelings of a group to which you don't belong.

---

You ought to read my original post in this thread about how patriarchy hurts EVERYONE not just women, and then try again.

Certain posters appear in numerous threads and turn the topic onto themselves. I'm criticizing them specifically, not any group in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Being with women seemed in contrast, sissy and unprotected, although also, disturbingly enjoyable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: And I don't see anything remotely false about Marvin's equivalences. They are all of exactly the same construction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

If you want males to fight against patriarchy, then talk about the things that 'patriarchy' does, not about the things that 'men' do. It's that simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

If you want males to fight against patriarchy, then talk about the things that 'patriarchy' does, not about the things that 'men' do. It's that simple.

---

I think the grey area comes in when we say things like "Men made the laws about (whatever. suffrage, inheritance rights, FGM)" because as hard as it is to read, it is a pretty factual statement. Only because at one point in human history the only people making laws were men. Phrasing it in a categorical way may be intended to be divisive, or it may be a way of sending home that there is a gender power dynamic at issue.

And since we are having this discussion, I have to say when men make "sweeping statements" about other men, very rarely do I see that challenged. It's usually framed in the form of an excuse ("You have to forgive the road rage, because Men are very territorial. You have to accept that your husband barked at you in public for correcting a word pronunciation, because Men have very fragile egos.It's no use to complain when your husband of 20 years dumps you for a 19 year old, because Men are biologically driven to pursue fertility.Etc.)

So while I agree that broad sweeping statements about the nature of men and women, sometimes you can't avoid making general statements about the expectations different genders have thrust on them, or the traditional application of privilege, and so on. We just need to be clear that is the kind of thing we are talking about.

And I personally also would like to see just as much ire directed at men who pigeonhole the masculine character with their comments. They need to be saying "some" and "many," too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Started a hell thread.

Would like to bring my thoughts back to why men who are victims of patriarchy often choose to position themselves against gender equality, in my view against their best interests.

There have been some good articles about this manifesting in the video game/sci fi culture. Many report Comic-Con to be a cesspool of sexism, for example. These guys probably weren't the prom king or football quarterback.

If these potential "male feminists" turn against feminist ideals, then whose fault is it - patriarchy being just too dominant for them to resist? Or is the feminist movement doing something wrong? I think it's a bit of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does it mean "you're allowed to be prejudiced so long as it's against men/whites/straights?"

---

quote:

---

If I saw an unknown young male loitering in the rain or looking through windows in an area with a high crime rate, I'd be suspicious as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not sexist. (I am also white and not racist).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Does it mean "you're allowed to be prejudiced so long as it's against men/whites/straights?"

---

This poster thinks so:

quote:

---

If I saw an unknown young male loitering in the rain or looking through windows in an area with a high crime rate, I'd be suspicious as well.

---

If it is ok to suspect an unknown man of being a criminal, it is ok to suspect an unknown man of being sexist.
There is one obvious difference: if seekingsister suspects you of being sexist that's not going to lead to you being arrested or shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.

---

In my experience the reaction is more varied. Some men do go towards the misogynistic position, blaming women for all their problems or seeing every advance made by women as a loss for themselves, but a lot of men just kind of sit back and say, "WTF?" Others go into analytic mode, while others just figure there's nothing they can do about the accusation or the situation that sparked it and wait for the conversation to move on.

I suspect that the reason some men strenuously object to "accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism" is the same reason most individuals object to accusations levelled at groups they belong to -- it seems unfair. The accusation is made about a whole group of people, but it's heard by individuals within that group as individuals.

And I think it truly is unfair and unhelpful to make such charges, unfair because it lumps over three billion individuals together in a huge generalization, and unhelpful because saying that "men are responsible for sexism" obscures the detailed and nuanced ways sexism is perpetrated and supported in our society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Pegasus postulates:

1. Women are the perpetrators of rape.
2. Women cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.
3. Women deny women the vote.
4. Women prohibit girls and women from education.
5. Women deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital.
6. Women insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son.
7. Women restrict a woman's right to control her fertility.
8. Women perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.

---

Your postulates are preposterous. They don't past the laugh test.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

I think when some men lash out against accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism, it's because for many of them are on the wrong side of patriarchy themselves. What I don't understand is why they don't ally themselves with the women's rights campaigners, whose work will generally make things better for these "less masculine" men." What I have seen happen many times is these men go towards the misogynistic "men's rights" position, blaming women for every single problem in their personal lives and society in general. As if, maybe acting uber-sexist will get them points with the alpha males around them.

---

In my experience the reaction is more varied. Some men do go towards the misogynistic position, blaming women for all their problems or seeing every advance made by women as a loss for themselves, but a lot of men just kind of sit back and say, "WTF?" Others go into analytic mode, while others just figure there's nothing they can do about the accusation or the situation that sparked it and wait for the conversation to move on.

I suspect that the reason some men strenuously object to "accusations that men-as-a-group are responsible for sexism" is the same reason most individuals object to accusations levelled at groups they belong to -- it seems unfair. The accusation is made about a whole group of people, but it's heard by individuals within that group as individuals.

And I think it truly is unfair and unhelpful to make such charges, unfair because it lumps over three billion individuals together in a huge generalization, and unhelpful because saying that "men are responsible for sexism" obscures the detailed and nuanced ways sexism is perpetrated and supported in our society.

---

I'd say that pretty much says it all about this strand of the thread.

"All men are sexist" is a syllogistic premiss. We all know the form:

All A's are B
X is an A
Therefore X is B

If only one instance of X is not B, then the first premiss is false, period. Maybe nearly all A's are B, or most, or some... but not all. "All" means each and every instance, no exceptions, and has forever.

Seekingsister, your "all" seems to be an idiosyncratic neologism, meaning, as far as I understand it, "Each and every instance, unless it's not". And I'm seriously not taking the piss, I just can't make any other sense of it. If that's not what you're saying, please spell out more clearly what "all" means to you. I don't get it.

As it is, I think only a couple of people here have said anything to imply that "all men are sexist" and despite a working life in very PC places, I can't remember when I last heard anyone else say that, maybe not for 20 years or more. So I'm not getting worked up about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If it makes you feel better, I have no problem with any man who shows clear signs of sexist behaviour being identified as such. Which is the analogous situation to what I posted about crime.

---

quote:

---

But really, the loitering and looking through windows is far more significant than the gender...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To be honest, Dafyd, I think anyone who claims they are not sexist is deluding themselves. We may not want to be personally sexist, but if we continue to participate in doing things in ways that discriminate against people by sex, then yes, we are sexists. Even though the accusation may sting us. Call it institutional sexism if you like.

I have been known to make an analagous point when people self-congratulatorily pontificate on how superior we are now we have abolished slavery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
To be honest, Dafyd, I think anyone who claims they are not sexist is deluding themselves. We may not want to be personally sexist, but if we continue to participate in doing things in ways that discriminate against people by sex, then yes, we are sexists. Even though the accusation may sting us. Call it institutional sexism if you like.

I have been known to make an analagous point when people self-congratulatorily pontificate on how superior we are now we have abolished slavery.

---

I think the most dangerous part of any negative -ism floating around society is that many people just don't believe that they've been internalized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was recently on a flight and the pilot was a woman. There were looks of shock on the faces of many passengers when they realized that it was not the flight attendant speaking. Would I say those people are sexist as in they hate women? No - because women were also surprised. But rather that many have internalized sexist ideas about job roles, that men are good at flying and women are good at handing out teas and snacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was recently on a flight and the pilot was a woman. There were looks of shock on the faces of many passengers when they realized that it was not the flight attendant speaking. Would I say those people are sexist as in they hate women? No - because women were also surprised. But rather that many have internalized sexist ideas about job roles, that men are good at flying and women are good at handing out teas and snacks.

---

quote:

---

...but rather by the simple fact that...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
[The fact that passengers were surprised does not prove that they were sexist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I said the surprise was due to the fact that we have internalized the idea that pilots are men.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of my friends was a RAF jet pilot; she has loads of stories about womping at low level over villages full of people sun-bathing naked in their gardens. Per ardua ad astra, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:


Seekingsister, your "all" seems to be an idiosyncratic neologism, meaning, as far as I understand it, "Each and every instance, unless it's not". And I'm seriously not taking the piss, I just can't make any other sense of it. If that's not what you're saying, please spell out more clearly what "all" means to you. I don't get it.

---

Show me where I said all please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

There have been some good articles about this manifesting in the video game/sci fi culture. Many report Comic-Con to be a cesspool of sexism, for example. These guys probably weren't the prom king or football quarterback.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Only joking, q. She was on visuals no doubt. But I'd like to think that somebody flying £100M worth of hardware at half the speed of sound was concentrating on the job and not eyeing up me - er, them - below.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
Started a hell thread.

Would like to bring my thoughts back to why men who are victims of patriarchy often choose to position themselves against gender equality, in my view against their best interests.

There have been some good articles about this manifesting in the video game/sci fi culture. Many report Comic-Con to be a cesspool of sexism, for example. These guys probably weren't the prom king or football quarterback.

If these potential "male feminists" turn against feminist ideals, then whose fault is it - patriarchy being just too dominant for them to resist? Or is the feminist movement doing something wrong? I think it's a bit of both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Is there such a thing as a male feminist? What might he be like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... 'flying high-speed jets, whilst perusing for naked arses, tits, dicks, and so forth and so on'.

---

Just looked like an irresistible seamless link to me
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But let me hasten to add that I am not speaking for - and indeed would not venture to speak for - those who fly high-speed jets, and peruse for arses, etc. I merely record their existence in a mood of sublime indifference.

Can we also celebrate the fact that the RAF (per ardua ad astra) in a spirit of equality and open-endedness, equips, trains, and indeed pays, women to do this as well as men.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
In the first universal-suffrage election, as a group they voted for the (white) National Party and in recent years have swung back to their successor, the DA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

Likewise, there is a fair degree of islamophobia; much of the support for the French hijab ban seems to have been argued from a feminist perspective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you look so adorable on your soapbox, Kelly.

---

Yeah, I know, and I'm beautiful when I am angry, too, right?
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:
It was interesting to hear the Greenbelt talk about rape describe feminism as a broad church, which has typically not been my experience - the problem I have typically found with feminism is that it is a sort of doctrinal orthodoxy that you have to adopt or reject wholesale. I suppose in this respect it is not unlike certain religions - there seems to be no room for "Cafeteria Feminists."

Also a lot of feminism exists to reinforce the difference between men and women and gender binary in particular. Apart from the fact that this leads - if only subconsciously - to placing revenge over reconciliation*, it denies the experience of third-gender, genderqueer and intersex people.

---

quote:

---

Also there is racism in the feminist movement, such as when the Swedish culture minister, campaigning against female genital mutilation, thought it okay to cut a cake shaped like a stereotypical black person. Likewise, there is a fair degree of islamophobia; much of the support for the French hijab ban seems to have been argued from a feminist perspective. Indeed there seems to have been a problem with "othering" - treating misogyny as a sort of white man's burden "out there" needing to be fixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:

Likewise, there is a fair degree of islamophobia; much of the support for the French hijab ban seems to have been argued from a feminist perspective.

---

I've seen that, too and here's the thing- most of the women I have met who wear hijab are the most passionate, loud, defiant feministas you could ever hope to meet. They have reclaimed the hijab-- rather than frowning about it, I think we should listen to why they have.

A good example of what I was talking about above-- picking a camp this early in the game will only deprive us of much needed insight.

(For the record, I know I am probably preaching to the choir, just got all soap-boxy.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
hijab hides identity and is inappropriate in this country.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Bikini is the outfit of the day in California in summertime;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:
It was interesting to hear the Greenbelt talk about rape describe feminism as a broad church, which has typically not been my experience - the problem I have typically found with feminism is that it is a sort of doctrinal orthodoxy that you have to adopt or reject wholesale. I suppose in this respect it is not unlike certain religions - there seems to be no room for "Cafeteria Feminists."

Also a lot of feminism exists to reinforce the difference between men and women and gender binary in particular. Apart from the fact that this leads - if only subconsciously - to placing revenge over reconciliation*, it denies the experience of third-gender, genderqueer and intersex people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
hijab hides identity and is inappropriate in this country.

---

How on earth does a hijab hide identity? Do you actually know what a hijab is?

Do you think that nuns wearing headdresses are inappropriate in your country?

Anyway, even clothing that DOES hide identity, such as a burqa... people bang on about privacy all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

Samira wasn't expressing any identity - and certainly not her own - by wearing shalwar kameez and hijab, she was wearing the clothes she was told to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
That all sounds fine and dandy quetzalcoatl until you reach a situation I experienced where a work colleague was delivered to the door by her (arranged) husband to ensure she didn't talk to anyone on the journey and was collected by him or her mother-in-law at the end of the day - God alone know how much extra they shelled out in fares to pursue this insanity.

In a heatwave this girl was made to wear shalwar kameez (black, navy or brown) and black hijab. One day mother-in-law got into the office to discover that Samira was not wearing the hijab in the office and started to beat her up. Eventually Security ejected the mother-in-law but Samira didn't show up for work for two days and when she came in on the third she was sporting two black eyes and numerous bruises.

Samira wasn't expressing any identity - and certainly not her own - by wearing shalwar kameez and hijab, she was wearing the clothes she was told to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
I was merely pointing out that when it is said that women wear the hijab out of choice this may not be the case - sorry if I offended and this is not your view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most blokes I know who use porn do not particularly want to see other blokes' willies. I'm not sure why the makers put them in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
... maybe it's time for men to have share in the action . Although I'm not sure if a male mega-pop star simulating an orgasm on stage would be allowed would it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most blokes I know who use porn do not particularly want to see other blokes' willies. I'm not sure why the makers put them in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most blokes I know who use porn do not particularly want to see other blokes' willies. I'm not sure why the makers put them in.

---

So you can imagine that's YOUR todger doing the deed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
rolyn - You seem to be confusing feminine and feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But what about the covering up of women's breasts? There are obviously cultures where this does not happen, so is this also an example of patriarchal oppression?

As against that, you could argue that women also want to cover up their breasts, not to obey patriarchal diktat, but for their own privacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I have heard that in some cultures breasts have no erotic significance so there is no privacy issue. They are there simply to feed babies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Most blokes I know who use porn do not particularly want to see other blokes' willies. I'm not sure why the makers put them in.

---

Cos they know blokes are being coy. Course they want to see the money-shot. All is well in the world of hydraulics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think clothing is often a difficult thing to analyze in terms of its influences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
the author gave the example of a seminar where she(? - best of my recollection) had asked about 100 men whether they thought other people expected them to wear a tie to work. Virtually all hands went up. She then asked them to keep their hand up if they liked wearing a tie. Only about 10 hands stayed up.

She then looked at them all and said "so why are you all doing it?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
the author gave the example of a seminar where she(? - best of my recollection) had asked about 100 men whether they thought other people expected them to wear a tie to work. Virtually all hands went up. She then asked them to keep their hand up if they liked wearing a tie. Only about 10 hands stayed up.

She then looked at them all and said "so why are you all doing it?"

---

"Because we want to keep our jobs."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Whereas the truth is that 90% of the other people around them don't like ties either and would be quite happy if people stopped wearing them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
These were managers. Admittedly I wouldn't know what LEVEL of managers they were, but they were managers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, I realise that. I'm not criticising you for failing to be psychic!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
They all think that everyone else is into wearing ties and they'll be in trouble if they don't wear one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
rolyn - You seem to be confusing feminine and feminist. Plenty of feminists would question what being feminine means. Women don't have to be feminine =- not being feminine is absolutely no barrier to being a feminist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
They all think that everyone else is into wearing ties and they'll be in trouble if they don't wear one.

---

I think this is a case of cultural stasis. And a method of determining one's place in the structure. Blue collar v. white collar, polyester tie vs silk. It is not like or dislike or fear. It is uniform, rank and armour. It remains so until the power of who you are greatly exceeds the power of what you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Hello. My name is Cod and I like to wear a tie, mostly because menswear (apart from ties) is so fecking dowdy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
... maybe it's time for men to have share in the action . Although I'm not sure if a male mega-pop star simulating an orgasm on stage would be allowed would it ?

---

I think you'll find that endless numbers of rock stars have done just that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Hello. My name is Cod and I like to wear a tie, mostly because menswear (apart from ties) is so fecking dowdy.

---

I resemble that remark.

Not that I actually wear a tie very much. Dress at my place of work is strictly informal - if a man wears a tie, it's because he's going to a funeral.
I probably wouldn't actually get fired for showing up to work in a suit and tie on a regular basis, but I wouldn't be taken seriously.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:
... maybe it's time for men to have share in the action . Although I'm not sure if a male mega-pop star simulating an orgasm on stage would be allowed would it ?

---

I think you'll find that endless numbers of rock stars have done just that.

---

Allegedly Nijinsky while dancing the premiere of L'apre's-midi d'un faune didn't merely simulate. That's high culture that is.

---

quote:

---

This whole ridiculous tale is symptomatic of the huge muddle around men's relationship to feminism. Obviously men can be feminists, as I often say. They can walk alongside us, just not ahead and take charge of the whole shebang. Increasingly, though, to talk about gender-specific issues invokes cries of "misandry" from the What About The Men brigade. According to some, anyone who mentions breast cancer therefore doesn't care about prostate cancer, anyone who mentions "domestic violence" doesn't care that men are victims of violence too. Female genital mutilation? What about circumcision? And so it goes ludicrously on, as though any woman speaking about these issues does not have sons, fathers, lovers.

To be accused of misandry – hating all men – when sometimes one is merely trying to stick up for some women is really tedious. I don't hate all men. Give me time!

...


The battering ram of misandry is another attempt to silence debate. It is misguided. It operates from the assumption that we are all on a level playing field. I say tomato. You say to-mate-oh. I say misogyny. You say misandry. What is missing here is any analysis of patriarchy. Or, indeed, global reality.

One may argue that the construction of patriarchy is just "natural" – women are weaker and have babies – or that it is cultural, and therefore changes as technology and contraception alters what is purely natural. Either way, it produces a multi-faceted system in which men at the top are the most advantaged. The spectrum of privilege is huge. There is a world of difference between not being able to get a buggy on to a bus and being raped and then stoned to death.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on the context. If an issue to do with women is being discussed, and then some men pipe up with 'we suffer too', I do think that's a deliberate kind of sabotage. And I can see why feminists get irritated by it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Learning Cnight, so is it never acceptable to discuss any problem except at its widest scope?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
Learning Cnight, so is it never acceptable to discuss any problem except at its widest scope?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QB]So if you're having a discussion about low pay in women with the aim of finding solutions, the appropriate way to have the discussion is to identify which women are low-paid, and then to identify why. And some of those reasons will turn out to be to do with third factors which are just statistically correlated with womanhood, in which case you do need to consider the third factor.
[QB]

---

When discussing low pay in women, it is completely uneccesary to examine factors which are unrelated to women. This is a different discussion.
In part because the women who are not payed lower are a massive exception.
Liopleurodon has it right.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
There is something sad about the fact that on a place like the Ship, every time a thread starts about sexism after a few posts it becomes exclusively about sexism against men. And threads about racism become exclusively about racism against whites. I've seen it over and over again on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
And didn't comments like that make you a little impatient that no one would make space for men to talk about something relevant to their lives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think anyone wants to forbid people of the wrong gender from reading or speaking on a thread. At least I certainly don't. Rather it seems a bit outrageous that every thread on feminism--and perhaps on men's issues too, you'll be unshocked to know I pay less mind to those considering what I've said above and that I am female--always involves men saying what about me. As quetzalcoatl says above this is tempting for anyone, but it seems decisively unhelpful to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I don't think anyone wants to forbid people of the wrong gender from reading or speaking on a thread. At least I certainly don't. Rather it seems a bit outrageous that every thread on feminism--and perhaps on men's issues too, you'll be unshocked to know I pay less mind to those considering what I've said above and that I am female--always involves men saying what about me. As quetzalcoatl says above this is tempting for anyone, but it seems decisively unhelpful to me.

---

If - and I may have completely the wrong end of the stick here - feminism is about equality, and that men need feminism too, any discussion about feminism or the application of feminist theory to society will inevitably impact (and ultimately aid) almost as many men as it will women, because the patriarchal system concentrates power and wealth in the hands of relatively few (men).

If that's the case, why wouldn't men want to comment, and why do you think it unhelpful that they do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

The "misandry" thread doesn't appear to have that happening.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm not saying I think it unhelpful for men to discuss feminism. I saying it unhelpful if men make such discussions all about them. If the way our society treats women changes that will certainly affect men. However, surely that will affect women more, so if we can only discuss such effects for women while also discussing the effects for men, that seems a bit unfairly limiting, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
[I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

The "misandry" thread doesn't appear to have that happening.

---

First post under the OP does exactly that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm not saying I think it unhelpful for men to discuss feminism. I saying it unhelpful if men make such discussions all about them. If the way our society treats women changes that will certainly affect men. However, surely that will affect women more, so if we can only discuss such effects for women while also discussing the effects for men, that seems a bit unfairly limiting, doesn't it?

---

Yes, it's unhelpful if a discussion about feminism is only from a male viewpoint and only about the effects on men.

Why would also discussing the effects of feminism on men be unfairly limiting?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Why would also discussing the effects of feminism on men be unfairly limiting?

---

Surely that would be a different thread? A thread like this one perhaps that is about males and feminism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
My husband is a stay-at-home Dad too, but he's still male, still has male privilege in many ways. THere's more to gender than role in society, and I think few women doubt that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

I think it would depend upon the tone. If it is an exploration those topics, I think the conversation can go well. If it is a stop complaining or everybody is racist/sexist, not so much. I tried to be very careful in my racism OP to include everyone. An OP on sexism towards males and racism towards whites would need to be phrased carefully as well. Both of those happen and they are wrong. It is when they are used to negate or minimise that a problem occurs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
My husband is a stay-at-home Dad too, but he's still male, still has male privilege in many ways. THere's more to gender than role in society, and I think few women doubt that.

---

There are an awful lot of people out there who have written an awful lot about gender being a social construct. I tend to agree with them.

---

quote:

---

Marvin the Martian: I wonder if the same sort of thing would be seen were we to have a thread that started with sexism against men or racism against whites. How long do you suppose any such thread would last without sexism against women/racism against non-whites being raised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Well, yes - but there's a hell of a lot more to gender being a social construct than the roles that adults take in society. A stay-at-home Dad has some things in common with a stay-at-home Mum, but there are also quite a lot of differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Well, yes - but there's a hell of a lot more to gender being a social construct than the roles that adults take in society. A stay-at-home Dad has some things in common with a stay-at-home Mum, but there are also quite a lot of differences.

---

If you're talking about being treated with suspicion by the other mums and disdain by the working dads, then yes. Or the lack of baby changing facilities in the men's toilets. Or being the only man at 'Mother and Baby' groups.

Otherwise, the numbing tedium and lack of sleep is pretty much the same.

And since I went through all that, society has thankfully moved (thanks, in no small part, to feminism) so that it's significantly easier for men to take the traditional Mother role.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
When discussing low pay in women, it is completely uneccesary to examine factors which are unrelated to women. This is a different discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
IIRC, wages are lower across the board for women, full or part-time. If this is indeed accurate, the treatment of part-time workers v. full-time workers is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Forgive me, but I grow weary of this dance.
The issue of part-time pay is only related to the sexism discussion if sexism is tied to the disparity in pay. Otherwise, while indeed a good subject for discussion, it is a separate discussion.

---

quote:

---

Porridge:
This brings us to a question: in what reliably documented, thoroughly studied, longstanding culture have women been the people wielding society-wide power, enforcing their society's cultural norms, reaping the majority of that culture's rewards, and being the generally-agreed-upon models for cultural success?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The proposition of the opening post (remember that?) was simply this: Is there such a thing as a male feminist?

My response remains a scathing No. The idea is a preposterous oxymoron and will remain so until the tide turns and parity of power between men and women is even remotely close to coming up over the horizon.
[snip]
It is certainly not probative to my assertion, but the number of men on this list of feminists is, laughably, minute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

My paragraph (Men do this; Men do that) that generate much heated, beside-the-point carping may not have much traction in those precincts, but it is sadly still valid in most of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The proposition of the opening post (remember that?) was simply this: Is there such a thing as a male feminist?

My response remains a scathing No.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The idea is a preposterous oxymoron and will remain so until the tide turns and parity of power between men and women is even remotely close to coming up over the horizon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:


Fortunate then that the thread did not founder on the godwin's Law of willies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

So for me, there is a distinct lack of real argument here, and rather a large amount of pure assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is not a reasonable argument. The definition of feminism does not include any gender restrictions for adherence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The proposition of the opening post (remember that?) was simply this: Is there such a thing as a male feminist?

My response remains a scathing No. The idea is a preposterous oxymoron and will remain so until the tide turns and parity of power between men and women is even remotely close to coming up over the horizon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The proposition of the opening post (remember that?) was simply this: Is there such a thing as a male feminist?

My response remains a scathing No. The idea is a preposterous oxymoron and will remain so until the tide turns and parity of power between men and women is even remotely close to coming up over the horizon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
RuthW and Kelly Alves say men can be feminists? Why should we listen to you rather than them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm a man

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I'm a man

---

There's a man on this thread? Help, I'm being oppressed!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
I have been thinking why, despite Kelly and Ruth's convincing arguments that men can be feminists, I've always felt uncomfortable about calling myself that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Thanks Kelly. Yes re thread dying, seems all's been said that could be.

---

Challenge accepted!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Male privilege can creep into male expressions of feminism and it's very frustrating when this happens. Particularly when the statements themselves are problematic in some way. One that comes up a lot is "Just remember, guys, when you're showing disrespectful attitudes towards a woman, that woman is someone's sister, or someone's mother, or someone's wife" and feminist ally cookies are duly handed out to the guy who says this. But I'm left thinking, hold on a minute. That woman is a human being, and your choosing to frame her in terms of her relationship to men is part of the problem. Even if she's not a sister, mother, or wife - even if there's not a single other person who cares about her - she still deserves respect. But if you point this out you tend to get a lot of "This guy is on our side! Lots of guys don't care about feminism at all! Why are you trying to fight him?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by argona:
Thanks Kelly. Yes re thread dying, seems all's been said that could be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I note also that this sort of rhetoric is also regularly employed when folks are trying to humanize our views of death row inmates, homeless people, and the soldiers of other countries ("He's some mother's son").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're bored by the discussion, don't click on the thread!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If you're bored by the discussion, don't click on the thread!

---

Unless you're hosting the board of course...

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0