Our Shared Shelf discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archive
>
Should men be part of feminist movement? No!
date
newest »
newest »
message 251:
by
Lynn
(new)
Jan 12, 2016 06:06PM
Of course there are good men as well as good women. Everyone should be able to make choices about her or his own life, not based on stereotypes or prejudice. Any man who believes in equality should be welcome to the feminist circle.
reply
|
flag
no because animals exhibit difference between male and female. Because men and women have evolutionary differences between them. The structure of how our brains are wired are different and are different form birth. We are counter parts of one another. no I'm not saying that there are not even more differences between individuals be cause their are more. Did you know that women can see color better then men, can taste sweet things better, have more neural connections throughout the Brian, were men have more neural connections within individual sections. Women experience cold more then men...The list goes on and on . No one is better just different and both sides need to repeat thoughts differences.
I have to go but from the bottom of my heart I sincerely like all you ladies, you make me smile.
Katelyn wrote: "James, I'm going to keep calling you out for refusing to listen to the thoughts of others.Many of us have given thoughtful responses to your claims about how feminism does not address men's issue..."
I realize this is not my conversation. This is just a pet peeve. Listening to what someone else says doesn't mean that they are going to have the same understanding
A simple question, was this post about patriarchy lol? Secondly (True) feminist don't accuse men, they accuse the ideology that has existed for so long. As Katelyn said feminism is for everyone who believe in equality.
But I'm glad to see this argument has become more civilised than the one before.
James wrote: "and drive me nuts"Why is anyone wasting time on this troll? He's obviously only here to a nuisance. (He has no books and no friends.) Just ignore this moron and go about our business --> Stop feeding the vampire and he'll wither away.
This is what everyone should do to Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.
B.M.B. wrote: "James wrote: "and drive me nuts"Why is anyone wasting time on this troll? He's obviously only here to a nuisance. (He has no books and no friends.) Just ignore this moron and go about our busines..."
Can't we be friends? I do believe in equality. I thought this is what these discussions were all about? I mean discussions are how you resolve problems right?
Where is the studies and proof of these feminist ideologies? I'm swear I'm not being sarcastic I really do wish to know. What is the bases and studies, behind them were did they come from. I have been talking about physiology ,sociology,evolution sciences. But I'm curious where do these feminist ideologies come from, who came up with them?..Are they considered more philosophies? Or is there economic and social structures have been tested? Again I really wish to know if someone could tell me?
Although I admire (really I do) the men who can put aside their own personal self-interest and serve the common good of all humanity from a sense of duty, or moral obligation, or at the very least to get mother's ghost to stop showing up every midnight--and would you believe it, the woman's not even dead yet!
Anyways, I really do admire them, you can take my word for it there. After all, I'm much too much of a straight-shooter to engage in any kind of double-talk (or at least not with the intention of successfully concealing anything) and I'm always very certain about all of my opinions. So when I say I admire them I really mean something like, "I feel some kind of admiration for them, mixed with contempt, but since it's more polite to talk about admiring someone than being contemptuous of them we'll stick to the positive emotion." Make a habit of that kind of thinking for long enough and even you won't be able to tell if you're speaking ironically or not! (And by the way, if you could just conveniently forget that part I put in quotes, about "contempt," I'd appreciate it. I do so hate to offend anyone.)
I really am going to start talking about feminism, soon.
("Be yourself," he mumbled to himself, "Say what you mean. Or mean what you say, if you prefer."
"But what if I don't--"
"And if you don't know what you mean, say something. That way when they react you'll be able to gauge what you meant by they're reaction.")
Okay, that's out of the way. Deep breath, and... I can't help but wonder about the genuineness of male feminists, however much I admire them. Now of course you'll say that's entirely uncalled-for, and a libel, and that the fact that I go around questioning people's motives all the time tells you a lot more about me than it does about male feminists. And you'd be right, I mean, if you want to call THAT being right... But just imagine the type of fellow I'm talking about here, you know the type, scared stiff of women and just massively uncomfortable with the very existence of sexuality. You know the guy, right? Are we developing an image here?
I guess what I'm suggesting is this: that there exists a certain type of man who, in order to "absolve" himself of the guilt and nasty aggressor-feelings he's associated with the act of penetration, will more or less unconsciously decide to take women's word for it on the way the world is. Or at least pay lip service to the idea. Almost a, "Try to be (or seem) as harmless as possible, remember the female mantis eats her mate," kind of thing. This kind of development reaches its lovely pinnacle when you see the guy at the bar trying to chat up girls by pontificating about Judith Butler.
Now, of course I'm not saying that every male feminist is taking up the cause in bad faith, or that HeForShe is a false flag, but I am suggesting that there may be some male feminists who are only cynically involved. I, however, am not one of them, because I am far too honest, forthright, and authentic to engage in that sort of despicable deception.
Anyways, I really do admire them, you can take my word for it there. After all, I'm much too much of a straight-shooter to engage in any kind of double-talk (or at least not with the intention of successfully concealing anything) and I'm always very certain about all of my opinions. So when I say I admire them I really mean something like, "I feel some kind of admiration for them, mixed with contempt, but since it's more polite to talk about admiring someone than being contemptuous of them we'll stick to the positive emotion." Make a habit of that kind of thinking for long enough and even you won't be able to tell if you're speaking ironically or not! (And by the way, if you could just conveniently forget that part I put in quotes, about "contempt," I'd appreciate it. I do so hate to offend anyone.)
I really am going to start talking about feminism, soon.
("Be yourself," he mumbled to himself, "Say what you mean. Or mean what you say, if you prefer."
"But what if I don't--"
"And if you don't know what you mean, say something. That way when they react you'll be able to gauge what you meant by they're reaction.")
Okay, that's out of the way. Deep breath, and... I can't help but wonder about the genuineness of male feminists, however much I admire them. Now of course you'll say that's entirely uncalled-for, and a libel, and that the fact that I go around questioning people's motives all the time tells you a lot more about me than it does about male feminists. And you'd be right, I mean, if you want to call THAT being right... But just imagine the type of fellow I'm talking about here, you know the type, scared stiff of women and just massively uncomfortable with the very existence of sexuality. You know the guy, right? Are we developing an image here?
I guess what I'm suggesting is this: that there exists a certain type of man who, in order to "absolve" himself of the guilt and nasty aggressor-feelings he's associated with the act of penetration, will more or less unconsciously decide to take women's word for it on the way the world is. Or at least pay lip service to the idea. Almost a, "Try to be (or seem) as harmless as possible, remember the female mantis eats her mate," kind of thing. This kind of development reaches its lovely pinnacle when you see the guy at the bar trying to chat up girls by pontificating about Judith Butler.
Now, of course I'm not saying that every male feminist is taking up the cause in bad faith, or that HeForShe is a false flag, but I am suggesting that there may be some male feminists who are only cynically involved. I, however, am not one of them, because I am far too honest, forthright, and authentic to engage in that sort of despicable deception.
Adam wrote: "So you're comparing children and deaf-blind people to women? Why do you hate yourself? Haha. I mean, deaf-blind people need help because they're not capable of doing all we do easily because of the..."I understand that women could do more for women's rights, but I feel like this is too much of a simplistic view on society. Society does not work in terms of punishments; sometimes there are certain limits that one simply cannot go beyond just by 'respecting' oneself. It requires the help of others; that is what heForshe is about, really.
Of course they'll be, but just as many as any other causes or projects. Cynism o non true behaviour we'll always live while humanity goes on. However, this doesn't deny I or a lot of other men can start working in a daily basis to achieve gender equality.
Because we are also directly or indirectly involved, because we do also suffer gender inequality (maybe not as much as women, it can be true) and just because if you accept the Human Declaration of Rights as true and good values, we can't stop until men and women live being treated the same as a normal thing.
Selene wrote: "Adam wrote: "So you're comparing children and deaf-blind people to women? Why do you hate yourself? Haha. I mean, deaf-blind people need help because they're not capable of doing all we do easily b..."
That limits you refer are way beyond what you are doing (generally speaking) in order to respect yourselves. So if you want to do something, just do it. And if someone looks at you like "who does she think she is, this stupid woman", screw him. And if you get paid less than males then make a fucking strike. What are you waiting for? And if male society rejects you create your own one, and someday when they see they can't control you anymore, then they will accept to collaborate. But while you stay and say "oh, how hard things are" and keep losing your time, you will get nothing. Gender inequality is not such a difficult issue from the theoretical point of view. It's quite a straightforward thing, so less philosophy and more acting, please.
That limits you refer are way beyond what you are doing (generally speaking) in order to respect yourselves. So if you want to do something, just do it. And if someone looks at you like "who does she think she is, this stupid woman", screw him. And if you get paid less than males then make a fucking strike. What are you waiting for? And if male society rejects you create your own one, and someday when they see they can't control you anymore, then they will accept to collaborate. But while you stay and say "oh, how hard things are" and keep losing your time, you will get nothing. Gender inequality is not such a difficult issue from the theoretical point of view. It's quite a straightforward thing, so less philosophy and more acting, please.
Adam wrote: "Selene wrote: "Adam wrote: "So you're comparing children and deaf-blind people to women? Why do you hate yourself? Haha. I mean, deaf-blind people need help because they're not capable of doing all..."I'm in complete agreement with you regarding 'more acting'; it would be wonderful if every female (and male) could go out there and actively engage in fighting for gender equality, like we are.
I would still like to point out, however, that just because we are fighting for a just cause does not mean we should have unrealistic expectations. Going on a strike is fine, except that there are probably only a few women in whatever place you work in compared to the number of men. And there are hundreds of men out there willing to replace your position; is a strike feasible? In most cases, unfortunately, it isn't. And it would really be great if women could do whatever they want to do, but there are societal burdens that seem to really weight down women. For example : the working mom. If you have a child, and if you are at work, you can't really neglect your child, especially if your husband is completely unwilling to do his share. It wouldn't be fair to the child, though, if you simply neglect it and continue on with your job.
I've been writing this and just realized that this is something really interesting to think about. How do you (and everyone else) think the burden of household chores and child-raising should be divided up between men and women? Exactly in half -- but what does that mean? Who would get to continue their job? Why? Etc., Etc.,. Thoughts on this please (:
You know you don't have to make a strike just with the women of your workplace? I mean, there are things like syndicates. If there is something called general strike, why not a women strike (or whatever you want to call it). That's excuse.
If your husband doesn't want to take care of his own child then you've married an idiot and you'd rather be single. But anyway, you can force them to do it if you don't surrender and accept their will. I mean, it's his responsability too, he can't reject to do it.
Of course it must be 50-50. I don't even understand how can a man hesitate about taking care of his child. I mean, it's the most incredible thing you can do as a human being, making another one, so this should be about fighting to stay more with her or him, not the opposite. But that's again our culture, we directly assume that's not man thing even though if you ask any man why he won't give you a logical response because he can't. He just follows social inertia, as most people do. The real problem is that collectives act like an individual, the most slow, stupid individual. It takes seconds for an individual to change his mind. It can take centuries for a collective to do that. That's the problem: collectives make people not use their minds, so they hugely slow down development. And that's just because those in power force you to do it in order to maintain their positions of privilege. That doesn't mean that leaders are the devil, it means that our leaders are as weak and stupid as everyone, but they have power.
So, I don't really care how. Probably the first months is more important that woman takes care and then switch. It depends on each family. But of course this must be done in the same way as always: 1) make society understand that this is normal and what we do today is an aberration, not on the contrary. 2) create laws in order to establish that.
If your husband doesn't want to take care of his own child then you've married an idiot and you'd rather be single. But anyway, you can force them to do it if you don't surrender and accept their will. I mean, it's his responsability too, he can't reject to do it.
Of course it must be 50-50. I don't even understand how can a man hesitate about taking care of his child. I mean, it's the most incredible thing you can do as a human being, making another one, so this should be about fighting to stay more with her or him, not the opposite. But that's again our culture, we directly assume that's not man thing even though if you ask any man why he won't give you a logical response because he can't. He just follows social inertia, as most people do. The real problem is that collectives act like an individual, the most slow, stupid individual. It takes seconds for an individual to change his mind. It can take centuries for a collective to do that. That's the problem: collectives make people not use their minds, so they hugely slow down development. And that's just because those in power force you to do it in order to maintain their positions of privilege. That doesn't mean that leaders are the devil, it means that our leaders are as weak and stupid as everyone, but they have power.
So, I don't really care how. Probably the first months is more important that woman takes care and then switch. It depends on each family. But of course this must be done in the same way as always: 1) make society understand that this is normal and what we do today is an aberration, not on the contrary. 2) create laws in order to establish that.
This thread becomes more and more harder for newcomers to be involved in. Discussion is constantly switching to something somewhat related. Remember that the topic of man-woman relations in history and modern world is so huge that it deserves a distinct board, or even a few.I think we should emphasize the goals of this particular thread and follow them strictly.
Of course they should, changing the society means that all of us need to start thinking differently not just woman but also men. Chauvinism mentally also hurts men not allowing them to be who they are because they should act in a certain way. Seems familiar?
I would say yes.Remember that patriarchy is not set to fight against women; instead, it's rules in men's war. The main idea of patriarchy is only the strongest man can take everything he wants, including money, political power and women. Women are taken as items while gay and other men failed to fit the types are losers, and both are suffering in this. In the past, participants in the game compete with military force; nowadays, the game is about money and political influence. Not only women but also men are imprisoned in the jail made from patriarchy.
Feminism is much more than girl power. It's about true freedom, which everyone( whoever you are, whatever you want to be) has the right to enjoy. Ruling out men in our request is just making another version of patriarchy.
If you want to know more about what I mentioned here, read the book < Gender Knot>.
Mod
First, I'll just tell you that the way you wrote and structured your post truly made me laugh out loud! Thanks for that.
But yeah, I totally know the type of person to whom you're referring, and they're definitely out there. There are also the "nice guys" who do the right thing and then turn around and are like "Hey, so, I'm so great, right? Where's my reward?" It also reminds me of the overblown adulation of male celebrities who embrace feminism. I don't mean to question THEIR motives, but there seems to be a significant disconnect between female celebs who take up feminism and who are then analyzed and everything they say and do is picked apart to make sure they're espousing the "correct" feminism, that kind of thing. But male celebs it's often an automatic: "WOW! SO WONDERFUL!" and he's everyone's new favorite person. Does that make sense? A bit of a ramble, I know, my apologies.
On the topic of housework and childrearing, it's a complicated issue. It goes much deeper than individual choice. It also has to do with socioeconomics, religion, all kinds of factors. Values are instilled in us since day one, and even with the best intentions, they can often be almost insurmountable challenge to overcome. It's closely linked to personal hygiene, as well, and how we are made to feel about our bodies. Laura Kipnis wrote a chapter called "Dirt" that dissects these things in her book The Female Thing. The book overall was mostly decent, but that chapter was great and eye-opening for me.
okay so we have this person on here with seemingly NO experience with domestic violence, who's opinion seems to be 'if you're hit once, bad on them, if you're hit twice, bad on you'. yet when someone tries to explain the HUGELY complex situation he doesn't want to hear it. he has his opinion and 'not to victim blame but blaming victims' is acceptable. it's not. you've stated your opinion, bully for you, we don't agree, bully for us. and using your own advice, 'we disagreed once, that's on us, now we disagree three, four times, that's on you' so there, case closed. we all know how you feel and are, not, so silently judging you. now, moving onI too was in a DV situation. I stayed, with a shit ton of work we are both okay now. here's how it had to happen. he did counseling and DV groups, they were crap. he developed his own system to help himself. what he learned wa, society teaches us that women are TOO emotional and men can only have two emotions. happy and angry. men aren't given the tools for emotional maturity so they can decipher what they are feeling let alone why and how to deal.
an emotional intelligence is paramount to stopping prejudice, violence and yes sexism. while it's not THE answer its one of them. just as I had to use emotional intelligence to figure out how I ended up in an abusive relationship, so did he.
btw, its never immediately abusive or even suddenly. it's a slow crawl down a rabbits hole that causes you to doubt reality and your perception of it. most DV victims are also victims of gaslighting.
I can't understand how can you love someone who did that to you. But if you do, congratulations. You're a better person than I am I guess.
I think it is very nearly impossible to make a change without equal participation from both sides (in this case, women and men). Yes, men do also face sterotyping which shouldnt exist. Everyone does, and it is my personal belief that this is one of the core roots of feminism: to remove sterotypes based upon gender and provide everyone with an equal opportunity to reach their goals, regardless of biological sex or gender.One thing I have seen a lot of on here is many men saying things along the line of "all feminists say this" or "feminists do this or believe this" usually followed by something very far from the true beliefs and actions of feminists. (Of course there Are radicals, as there are in nearly every organization). But do we use the beliefs of radicals as the core beliefs of a group? Only when descriminating this group. So why do many nonfeminists, those on the fence, men, and others use these beliefs as guidelines for what "feminists believe"?
Denver | So why do many nonfeminists, those on the fence, men, and others use these beliefs as guidelines for what "feminists believe"? "
Well, the media is much more likely to give exposure to "crazy feminists burn books with male protaganists", then they are to write about "feminists protest against tampon tax." It's what people read. If you rely on the media alone, you're not going to get any other POV, so you could easily pick up that impression.
Plus, it's very easy to argue with the extremists in a society. If I'm against gun control, it is much easier to argue against the people who argue that assault rifles should be legal than those who regularly hunt. It's much easier to attack people who have more extreme beliefs, then it is the more moderate.
And then people exaggerate a lot. And misquote. UK politics has started a massive attack on Jeremy Corbyn, as a terrorist sympathizer, because he said it was a tragedy that Osama was killed. In context, he said that it was a tragedy that Osama was not put on trial and held accountable, but with misquotes and overenthusiastic reporting, we have newspapers saying he's sabotaging the country.
Well, the media is much more likely to give exposure to "crazy feminists burn books with male protaganists", then they are to write about "feminists protest against tampon tax." It's what people read. If you rely on the media alone, you're not going to get any other POV, so you could easily pick up that impression.
Plus, it's very easy to argue with the extremists in a society. If I'm against gun control, it is much easier to argue against the people who argue that assault rifles should be legal than those who regularly hunt. It's much easier to attack people who have more extreme beliefs, then it is the more moderate.
And then people exaggerate a lot. And misquote. UK politics has started a massive attack on Jeremy Corbyn, as a terrorist sympathizer, because he said it was a tragedy that Osama was killed. In context, he said that it was a tragedy that Osama was not put on trial and held accountable, but with misquotes and overenthusiastic reporting, we have newspapers saying he's sabotaging the country.
Of course men should be a part of the feminist movement I feel that if men and women powered together, we could make a change in gender inequality
hey... Cat :) good and equal possibility for men and women, the way im understood 'gender equality'... well, if we r talking about work promotion, promotion on some position, it often happens on general assessments that do not depend on gender... of course promotion could based on preferences of promoter (the person who is checking the results of employee work), but this 'preferences' could happen if assessments rules have bad implication, what leads to different kind of manipulation and touch not only women but men also, i mean its touch all workers in organization...
Denver |You'll Find Me In the Clouds|ฯ wrote: "I think it is very nearly impossible to make a change without equal participation from both sides (in this case, women and men). Yes, men do also face sterotyping which shouldnt exist. Everyone doe..."Maybe because some of those you could describe as "radicals" are moderates to the wider feminist movement.
If men aren't feminists too, then the whole point becomes moot. Feminism is as much a way to view and interact with the world as it is a movement...Feminism is both. So, do women need to be the face of the movement....of course. Do men need to find feminist balance in their lives and thoughts and actions....yes.
hello... :)it's depends on what support you r waiting...
see, girls often using their charm to get something...
well, it's not bad, we all using our skills to get something...
but it's in your responsibility to learn a subject or just use your charm on a professor to get better grade...
saying something like : "it's math, professor, i'm a girl... :}"
and there is no gender difference actually, because boys saying like : "professor, i have a good bottle of wine..."
sure the last one looks more like a bribe, but well it's up to you to choose to be more educated or not...
well, i'm suggested to my team lead to hire one smarty beauty girl... as frontend developer... she is smart...
definitely... but well three guys working for her like a slaves doing her job, a month or so... they hope to date with her... am not testing... seriously... and one still helping to her because of hope... but, really, how long this "hope support" would work for her...? : )
It was quite a few years ago when I first heard of the word "feminism". Being an ignorant "know-it-all", I just assumed that since the word was derived from "female", feminist are a group of people promoting the idea of blind female worship and that women are more superior then men. But after a couple of discussions, debates and research, I found that I was totally wrong. For one, it took some time for me to admit that the world didn't exist in binary that I once thought it was. There is no clear black and white, or good or evil. There is an entire spectrum of colors between darkness and light. And in the end, it is the same with Feminism.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Compliments to Kodak for the post above. There are no Bible, Quran or Torah for Feminism. Feminism is an idea that promotes equality between gender. It is the very fight for human rights that has evolved over time. Feminism is like Abraham Lincolns' fight against slavery, just for a different group of people, women. Initially, Feminism can be seen as empowering women and benefiting women more then men. But that is an obvious outcome of fighting for equality in a patriarchal society which by definition, means that men have more rights then women.
But if we keep going tit for tat, we cant see the forest for the trees. In the end, the fight of Feminism is the fight for equal rights among gender. In other words, Feminism fights against gender roles. Why does a man have to be the bread winner of the family? Why does a house husband get look upon with frown and stigma as oppose to a house wife?
Men and women aren't that different and neither can live without the other (and yes I'm talking about natural procreation). Therefore, lets do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Having been a part of the womens movement in the 70s in Germany we have had this discussion from the beginning especially with the communist groups as they claimed the question of women's rights to be a side contradiction within the Marxist concept of contradiction. Well I think the question of men being part of the feminist movement I would answer with yes and no. No, when it comes to structure the movement in self consciousness and awareness of womanhood and feminism, which need definition and distinction by the women itself. All men and women are experts in the partriarchial rolemodels as all have been brain washed. However if men support the movement, by organizing demonstrations, political and juridicial demands and developing a self reflective statement about their role and responsibility within this partriarchal society and their real efforts to change that. F.i. being active in family works, homeworks, childrens works, supporting women in jobs, even if they are their boss or competition? These are the limits that every man experiences to be irrealistic. Also it is very scarcely that men are active in the anti rape or pro abortion movement.
It is obvious that feminism is very difficult to include into your personal life and to live that the 'private' is political certainly I found that men had their limits and they often were dictated by fear of losing their identity. So yes with men in certain areas, but my experience is that they are limited. Unfortunately I experienced that men became VERY engaged when it came to injustice within the divorce laws and child care, but discussions became rather hostile when we tried to find a mutual basis of discussion to reach a change in family laws. As soon as men understand that changing the situation would undermine their priviliges the discussion reaches its end. It is sad, but maybe one day there will be a better basis to start from? However until then I can only hope that more and more women educate their sons differently inspite of the oversexualized politics that are nowadays contradictions to all aimes of the feminist movement which started in the 70s and those numerous studies since then.
I found, “My Life on the Road” was a perfect choice to begin our feminist book club. It perfectly laid out important historical events in the women’s right movement as well as gave many examples of where there is inequality that still needs to be addressed. I think my favorite quote from the book was, At first, feminists were assumed to be only discontented suburban housewives; then a small bunch of women’s libbers, ‘bra burners,’ and radicals; then women on welfare; then briefcase-carrying imitations of male executives; then unfulfilled women who forgot to have children; then women voters responsible for a gender gap that really could decide elections. That last was too dangerous, so suddenly we were told we were in a ‘postfeminist’ age, so we would relax, stop, quit. Indeed, the common purpose in all these disparate and contradictory descriptions is to slow and stop a challenge to the current hierarchy (p.102).
I believe this quote explains what we see a lot of today… the belief that we do not need feminism anymore because women already have achieved equality. But what a lot of these believers get wrong is that feminism is not just for women, but also for everybody, and that we still need feminism more than ever. It’s not about “man hating” as many believe it to be, but it is about the acceptance of both masculine and feminine qualities in everybody, and believing that they should be equally valued.
Gloria Steinem told a beautiful story of a man who was raised as a girl. This person’s story really hit me when he said that it is terrible to be a victim, but he could have had it worse and become and abuser as his grandfather was. He understood that abuse was something passed on through generations, and that the misconstrued image of what it meant to “be a man” is damaging to boys and men all around the world. This is why feminism is so important for both men and women. Because currently, women are being abused because they are seen as the lesser gender, and men are stuck in the role of proving their manhood through violence. It will take both sides to create equality.
Oh god, I just read this monster of a thread in one go. I believe it is my favourite so far. Enlightening. Overwhelming. Honest. I like.
Such a brilliant guy the one who created it! :P
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
