|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Male feminism
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I prefer speak in unison with, but yes.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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 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.
That women benefit is completely beside the point. That some women perpetrate only demonstrates that some women are dupes and Quislings.
Don't accept the term "male feminist." It gives men, who already have all the voice they want and need (see Zach82's post on privilege) more voice than they can properly handle.
I say, Men already have had more than enough say in women's lives. Let the men join the Feminist Boy's Auxiliary. Let women speak for women.
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"
I'm not making that point. Pack that rhetoric away until you have a suitable target.
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?)
Impeccable credentials possibly, but a abysmal handling of the facts. Let's try it on for size.
quote:
Pegasus postulates:- Women are the perpetrators of rape.
- Women cut women's genitalia as a form of sexual control.
- Women deny women the vote.
- Women prohibit girls and women from education.
- Women deny women the freedom to work and hold their own capital.
- Women insist that a woman always be tended by a her father, her husband, or her son.
- Women restrict a woman's right to control her fertility.
- Women perpetrate sexual slavery over women in sex trafficking.
Your postulates are preposterous. They don't past the laugh test.
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.
Male feminist is an oxymoron. The man can assist, he can support, he can theorize and organize Men. He cannot speak for Women.
He is essential, but only as a pro-feminist, as collaborator with feminists.
Feminism is women's work.
The essential work necessary to curb masculinist excess and savagery is men's work. It must be conducted by men using feminist principles.
Men may have insights. Gay males and other queers may have insights at the margins. They may provide key insights and strategies, but they must be ground fine and sifted by women's minds and incorporated in feminist strategies by women.
We have had more than enough of men telling women how to think and what to do.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A black community leader told her it was not her fight...<and the rest>
Find someone who is saying that the fight does not belong to men as well as women and aim your cannon there. I'm saying that the word feminism, by it's very nature, describes an ineluctably female task. Men may theorize and contribute, but the liberation of women from masculinist savagery must be guided principally by women's minds. quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you're referring to FGM I believe it is in most cases done by older women.
Sure, women may do the cutting, but is it for the benefit of men.
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.
We are in violent agreement.
By all means let men carry a torch. Let a man take one for women. Women have much to gain from men assuming their responsibilities to crush masculinist oppression.
But, men cannot speak for women. Men cannot arrogate to themselves feminist gravitas.
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
The Silent Acolyte: What I see in this thread is the difference between "speak for" and "speak up for".
and quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes, exactly.
Exactly. We are in agreement.
To allow a man to call himself a feminist is the camel's nose under the tent.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I prefer speak in unison with, but yes.
No. Put the men in the chorus. It is women's voices that must prevail. We've heard enough from men. The sordid History sucks, doesn't it.
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.
Let men speak in those oppressive precincts of power. Indeed, they must speak for there to be change.
But, let them speak as men, as men who are ashamed of their blatant masculinist heritage.
But, at no time, ought they presume to speak, as feminists, for women.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Woe! Woe am I, for I am a shameful man. To be male is to be shameful. There is no hope for males. All males are evil.
This is what you sound like.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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.
[ 26. August 2013, 05:14: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
And again I say so long as it is seen as us and them it will always be thus.
Argue all you will, SA, this only will I accept. It must be we, the voices must be in unison.
I have seen what it can be and I will not accept anything less.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
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?
Seriously mousethief, get a grip.
I'm not your ex-wife. I'm sorry about your life choices; many of mine haven't been so great either.
However, nothing I've said can be contorted into anything remotely like "men are inherently evil." They are not. I'm not a dualist.
Still less have I painted you as a raging sexist. Nor, have I said that "men can't say anything."
Simply put: Go Back and Read for Comprehension.
[ 26. August 2013, 05:30: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
What I am reading is you simply have a problem with the specific phrase "Male feminist," not with men furthering feminist ideals.
(shrug)
While I kind of grinned at the idea of a "feminist boy's auxiliary", I find that kind of gender-based exclusion of compatriots frankly silly. It's silly when the Odd Fellows do it, it was silly when the trade unions did it, and I see no reason for feminists to mimic silly behavior.
[ 26. August 2013, 05:38: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
What I have problem with is men presuming to speak for women. The oxymoron "Male Feminist" gives them cover to do so. That's what makes the neologism so odious.
Listen carefully the next time some Republican brays about his Feminist Cred—and then cringe.
It's not strictly a gender-based exclusion so much as it is an exclusion motivate by imbalance of power.
The last I checked my Carpenters' Local wasn't handing out cards and granting the union franchise to corporate fat cats.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
AHEM
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
you're an idiot
Desist.
-RooK
Outside of Hell, and so are you.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well, of course, some morons are going to co-opt a term like that without earning it. (I myself claim to be a gay advocate, it means very little unless some sort of activity backs it up.) But that tendency of philosophical opportunists is not enough reason for me to question the motives of men who adopt the term and concurrently adopt behavior that satisfies the application of the term "feminist." There no doubt will be grey areas as to what satisfies who, but again, it doesn't strike me as fair to label all guys who call themselves feminists as ideological tourists, or whatever.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It also seems curiously sexist. You're a man, therefore ...
Isn't this actually accepting of the categories imposed by patriarchy? Or, divide and rule, if you will?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
Thanks Niteowl , my sentiments entirely .
I wasn't intending to drag us back to Victorian days . My observation is based simply on the fact that women's prisons aren't heaving like men's prisons . Women do not crash cars or commit violence anywhere near that which men do etc. etc.
No one is disputing the fact that a high proportion of men can be complete bastards given the chance . Any society where male dominance is prevalent has abuses towards women of one sort of another.
Male feminism looks like it might be a useful truce, and something capable of benefiting both genders in the future. If not, then the tables will turn, and it will be men who suffer the abuse in female dominant societies, (and some,given the past, may want to say 'and rightly so').
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'll come back to the point of male feminists, but I want to set a scene.
I saw a play on Saturday night set in Girton College, Cambridge in 1896/1898 when the tiny handful of women who attended were not allowed to graduate. One of the scenes had Henry Maudsley lecture on hysteria, using quotations from Sex in Mind and Education (1874), showing women being denied education because she is:
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”.
Another quotation from Maudsley is used in the promotional material:
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.'
The reactions to this scene were varied: laughter, shock, some booing/hissing, I suspect some total disbelief. It was the first scene showing how much opposition early women scholars faced. The play also portrayed riots and public burning of an effigy of a woman wearing blue stockings and bloomers on a bicycle outside the college when the vote on whether women should be allowed to graduate was called.
It took to 1948 for women to be granted the right to graduate from Girton.
Now the point of this comment on this thread was that there one or two men prepared to teach these women and risk their own careers. There were one or two undergraduates prepared to risk their own social cachet by supporting the women students. Most undergraduates were portrayed as against these unnatural women and not prepared to risk their careers prospects by falling out of line. Would it be fair to describe these men who supported in that situation as male feminists?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One thing that puzzles me about feminists who demonize men - does this mean that they don't want to hear what I have to say, because I'm a man? This is like a reverse image of sexism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I suspect that male feminist is a title to be earned not a position to be claimed.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Certainly not a title I'd claim for myself. But as I say, Mrs A calls me a feminist, so I accept that from her. I can see the force of the argument that a man calling himself a feminist might imply a claim to speak for women's experience. What might be better? 'Anti-sexist'/ 'anti-patriarchalist' (by analogy with 'anti-racist')? More nuanced, but awkward. But, with JS Mill, I am perfectly convinced that when women are placed in a subordinate position, men lose out too.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
I think in both cases though there's a risk. The first duty of someone who is not a member of an oppressed group, beyond basic level morality, is to listen to the people who are members. One oughtn't to assume that one's instincts are automatically on the right side. They might not be. Arguably the problem with modern Marxist groups like the Socialist Worker's Party is that the vast majority of them have only a patronising interest in the people they claim to speak for.
I half disagree that a man can't be a feminist. I would rather say that the title is one that is only to be conferred by a woman, and should never claimed by the man himself.
There is one poster on this board, who has been called to Hell for complete insensitivity to women's issues, who claims to be a feminist. And therefore he says the accusation cannot possibly be just. That's the danger.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
I just don't get this 'speak for' rhetoric. I don't speak for anyone but myself. Hence, I don't speak for men, or women, or white people, or black people, or gays, or straights. That would be paternalism.
However, I have certain ideas and arguments about gender, sexuality, patriarchy, and so on, and I have spent about 50 years disseminating those in various ways. If someone doesn't want to listen, fine.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
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.
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?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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]
I suspect it's how it plays out in practice. The Fawcett Society and the National Organisation of Women are both go-to places for the "Feminist View" by news agencies. Both of which seem to be staffed by the Anti-Men groups...
So all we humble blokes out int he world hear is how Everything Is Our Fault, how We Must Abase Ourselves For Everything Our Ancestors have Done... how we are all rapists unless proven otherwise - guilty unless proven otherwise...
And we had thought that men and women were equal and we'd done all this back in the 80s and 90s.
To someone like me - who had struggled with sexual bullying in school, felt guilty enough being a bloke (internalised the antisexual side of how church teaching played out etc), having a load of feminist guilt dumped on me as well...
I have to ask - do feminists feel Ok with collective punishment? Because the loudest voices in their community do seem to revel in collectively punishing powerless men..
Just a rambling thought...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
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.
I suppose that I hadn't even heard of them until the recent "Ban Lad Mags, ban all guy space" battle int he press - which seems to be a replay of the Dworkin/Mackinnon 80s Feminist Sex Wars... where D/M declared themselves The True Feminist Voices.
VERY strident at the time - and all anyone outside academia heard.
A bit like the American view of Islam on 9/11... all they heard was a bunch of guys wanting to kill them...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
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.
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:
Simply put: Go Back and Read for Comprehension.
It's hard to read through the spittle.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
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'.
[ 26. August 2013, 12:17: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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.
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. If societies that carry this out suddenly wanted it stopped, it would be hard to convince the older women. By now, the practice has a life of its own.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Indeed. But as Steven Lukes says, …is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people…from having grievances by shaping their perceptions…in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial?’
So if you want to stop FGM perhaps you have to start with the women, end especially the older women who do it- but that doesn't mean that it isn't an expression of patriarchal power.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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'.
I'm not sure which meetings you have in mind, when you say that men might go, but not vote. There are a whole variety of meetings and contexts, where people talk about gender, sexuality, oppression and so on.
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?
I never thought I was speaking (or writing) for women, or for men, actually. I find this 'for' business rather weird.
A parallel example - I've worked in anti-anti-gay campaigns in the therapy world for ages, (e.g. against gay reparative therapy), and have been connected with Pink Therapy for yonks. I told them explicitly I'm not gay, but I am gay affirmative, and they were very welcoming. But again, I don't see myself as speaking for gays, or in fact, for straights.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
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.
Compliance is not the same thing as instigation though. These women don't make the rules; they just perpetuate their own subjugation by men who have drawn a beard on the Ultimate Source of Authority.
Where men are prepared to undergo constant self reform alongside women doing the same, all parties may have some claim to call themselves humanitarian. The recognition that male and female are equally worthy of respect is an essential part of that process; of dismantling ruinous perceived wisdoms, which wrong-headed religion has done so much to endorse.
Btw: the self-delusion of 'male feminism' was comprehensively debagged over 30 years ago by the comedian Rik Mayall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h54wCQsz3RY
(Link fairly suitable for work)
[ 26. August 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: kankucho ]
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Debagged? Let's just say caricatured and straw-manned.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Since there have been many connections made between feminism and the civil-rights movement already, I feel safe to make this argument.
It would obviously be wrong for a white person to, say, write a novel about black people, and then to presume that it expresses the very core of African American experience. However realistic the characters in this novel, it will still be the product of white privilege, and the writer would commit a grave error by not recognizing this. Uncle Tom's Cabin is obviously pro-abolition and seeks to humanize black characters, but as for the experience of black people, dear Miss Stowe had pretty much no clue.
Which isn't at all to say that the novel is bad simply because it's from a white person writing about black people. It was quite out of the ordinary for its time, and had a profound effect on its time's discourse about slavery. It simply shouldn't claim to be more, or less, than it is.
[ 26. August 2013, 16:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That would suggest that novelists can't write about the opposite sex. Sometimes it's true - Jane Austen's men are generally either dull or cads, but George Eliot had some interesting insights into men.
Coming from a psychoanalytic background, I see gender and sexuality as highly incoherent and unstable. It's bourgeois patriarchal society which tries to freeze them, and turn them into dualistic systems.
[ 26. August 2013, 16:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
So, then, are books to contain only single character types from one socioeconomic level and only one gender?
Of course it is acceptable to write as other than what one is, this is what good authors do.
It is important that one researches any unfamiliar aspect including colour and gender. It is also important to grasp the limitations of one's understanding.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That would suggest that novelists can't write about the opposite sex...
No, it doesn't.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
And I am just not jiving with this image of packs of me invading feminism and taking it over. Again, the stereotype (if you will) that I have formed regarding men who claim the label is that of someone who is an active listener with women--
maybe i should define my terms-- and who is very loud with men, when ignorant comments or exclusionary behavior happens.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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 ...
I agree completely with that man. TSA is using an idiocyncratic definition of the word "feminism" that somehow includes "speaking for" women, and unless she can get a whole lot of people to come on board with that and thus change the definition, she's wrong.
So I'm allowed to say that and Dave W. is not?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Would it be fair to describe these men who supported in that situation as male feminists?
It would be fair to describe them as men who had the women's interest at heart , and were prepared to court unpopularity in doing so.
It is of course a tender line when we men, (in a domestic situation), think we have a woman's best interests at heart . EG. 'I carry that dear' or 'You don't need to be out working hard like that'.
I'm sure many a male control freak could run around with the idea he's a male feminist when, in reality, he's anything but.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If people misusing words and misapplying definitions to themselves invalidates said words and definitions, then we have no language.
Does it bother the naysayers that every woman but one on this thread supports allowing feminist to be applied to men? And that all of these women fit comfortable into the definition of feminist themselves?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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.
[ 26. August 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: Porridge ]
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Yep. [To lilbuddha]
If anything feels patronizing to me, it's the idea that I couldn't tell the difference between some trendy kid flinging around the word "feminist" and someone who takes the matter seriously. Perhaps a gullible little thing like me needs protecting.
And by that measure, the most sexist thing said to me in this thread was by TSA, with her dismissive reference to my location and my "boy's club." I can picture Donald Trump puffing on a big old stogie and making a crack like that.
Also-- what Ruth said. Compare the above to someone asking a straightforward, relevant question about the validity of someone's definition. Which is patronizing, and which is respectful and responsive?
[ 26. August 2013, 17:54: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
And they get paid for it.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
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.
It's a metaphor.
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?
Read what I actually said again. It's not related to your status.
[ 26. August 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
So I'm allowed to say that and Dave W. is not?
He can say anything he likes, the point is, it illustrates what TSA was (as I understand it) talking about.
[ 26. August 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
In what way? He asked a reasonable question in a respectful way. Who was he shutting up or overtaking?
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
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.
[ 26. August 2013, 18:14: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
So if Dave W. says she's using an idiosyncratic definition of "feminism" it's a gambit. What is it when I saw the exact same thing?
This isn't pettifogging crap. I think the stance you and TSA are taking is not going to advance the aims of feminism at all.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
