Feminists... Male?

[BeerShaman]

Can there be male feminists? While talking with a friend, he claimed that there can be no male feminists. Is this true or not? What do you think. Please mention your stance (feminist or not) and sex (male/female...).
Pesronally, I consider myself a male feminist. Let's start...

[meow]

feminist is merely believing in gender equality. surely there can be male feminists...

i think that your friend has an incorrect understanding of what feminism is.

[Tower of Bebel]

The plead and struggle of socialists before the 1900's for the emancipation of women is called "male feminism" because at that time socialist "feminists" were mostly male. They were also the only known men who fought for equal rights for women. After the 1900's more and more men became "feminist" making the concept of feminism universal and male feminism obsolete.

Feminism however is not (necessarily) genuine socialism

[Queercommie Girl]

Women need self-emancipation, not having progressive men acting as their "defenders" or "protectors".

[Meridian]

Women need self-emancipation, not having progressive men acting as their "defenders" or "protectors".
Males wanting to end gender discrimination does not imply wanting to act as protectors or defenders of anyone (except perhaps themselves).

[Queercommie Girl]

Males wanting to end gender discrimination does not imply wanting to act as protectors or defenders of anyone (except perhaps themselves).

I didn't say I disagree with the idea of "male feminism" in general, I disagree with the subset of male feminists who think men should have a leading position in the women's movement.

Since feminism, unlike masculinism, implies gender equality, rather than considering males as inferior to females or masculine virtues as inferiors to feminine virtues, it does not in principle rule out the possibility of having "male feminists".

[counterblast]

The idea that there cannot be "male feminists" is a huge second-wave feminist oversimplification of the gender myth and the patriarchy.

Does your friend really think that some sissy-boy in pink hot pants and glitter eyeliner, benefits from the patriarchy because he happens to have a penis?

[Quail]

Of course you can have male feminists. Anyone who wants gender equality is a feminist. Your question is similar to "can there be white anti-racists?" or "can there be heterosexuals who oppose discrimination against LBGT people?".

That isn't to say that men should "take over" the feminist movement and bring equality from the top down. You can't beat patriarchy with more patriarchy.

[scarletghoul]

your friends chatting shit

[F9]

I didn't say I disagree with the idea of "male feminism" in general, I disagree with the subset of male feminists who think men should have a leading position in the women's movement.


So you disagree with male "feminists", not male feminists.Cause your earlier post made us misunderstood you.Now its clear.
The ones you talk about are just plain idiots!
As for the OP, of course there can be male feminists, but sadly as everything around this world, there is always gonna be some idiots who adopt the label for other reasons, but thats not a reason to disqualify the whole movement.

[Zeus the Moose]

In an Intro to Women's Studies class that I took we read an article that used the term "pro-feminist men" to talk about people I would otherwise consider to be feminists who happened to be men. I don't remember the arguments specifically, but it does show that variations of the idea that "men cannot be feminists" do exist. I wasn't particularly persuaded by the article, and still consider myself a feminist who happens to be male, rather than a "pro-feminist man."

[anticap]

I'm reminded of the following:


The objections which are explicitly urged against women's suffrage are, of course, not those which weigh most with most men. Men fear that their liberty to act in ways that are injurious to women will be curtailed, and that they will lose that pleasing sense of dominion which at present makes "no place like home". --Bertrand Russell, 1910

I believe that any man who opposes the sort of men described by Russell qualifies as a feminist.

[Invincible Summer]

I didn't say I disagree with the idea of "male feminism" in general, I disagree with the subset of male feminists who think men should have a leading position in the women's movement..

I've never heard of this... could you link me to some examples?

[counterblast]

I'm reminded of the following:


I believe that any man who opposes the sort of men described by Russell qualifies as a feminist.

On a side note (at risk of stating the blaringly obvious); I just wantto clarify that not all men (or women for that matter) opposed womens suffrage on sexist grounds. Many Leftists especially, opposed womens suffrage because they opposed the ballot in general.

[F9]

I've never heard of this... could you link me to some examples?

Many idiots exist out there in the streets, and arent linkable;)

[Queercommie Girl]

I've never heard of this... could you link me to some examples?

It may not be conscious, like a lot of patriarchal attitudes, a lot of it is implicit, even among people who are subjectively genuine progressives.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Can there be male feminists? While talking with a friend, he claimed that there can be no male feminists. Is this true or not? What do you think. Please mention your stance (feminist or not) and sex (male/female...).
Pesronally, I consider myself a male feminist. Let's start...
Men can be feminist. The problem is men who bring (even subtle) sexist attitudes. Though it is kind of ironic when they do.

[Invincible Summer]

It may not be conscious, like a lot of patriarchal attitudes, a lot of it is implicit, even among people who are subjectively
genuine progressives.

Please go on.

IMHO, if a male considers himself a feminist, is deemed a "subjectively genuine progressive," yet has some "implicit" patriarchal attitude (how you pick up on this or what it even means I don't know... you need to give examples, Iseul), I don't see how this is at all close to the claim of "males wanting to lead the feminist movement."

Stop being cryptic and just say what you mean.

[Adi Shankara]

Iseul, I know you have some interesting and controversial ideas on patriarchy and sexuality, so I want to ask you: do you think transsexual female-to-males really benefit from the patriarchy? and remember: if you say that they don't because they're transsexual and thus exempt, then you're not treating transsexuals like the males they may have become, as then you are slicing things into "us" vs "them" paradigms.

[#FF0000]

In an Intro to Women's Studies class that I took we read an article that used the term "pro-feminist men" to talk about people I would otherwise consider to be feminists who happened to be men. I don't remember the arguments specifically, but it does show that variations of the idea that "men cannot be feminists" do exist. I wasn't particularly persuaded by the article, and still consider myself a feminist who happens to be male, rather than a "pro-feminist man."

I think the argument would be that men benefit from patriarchy and thus are sexist. Sort of the same as the "all white people are racist because they benefit from white privilege", except the former is way shakier.

[9]

I think this whole thread, like a lot of discussions on the topic of "feminism", is basically splitting hairs over semantics and not really addressing anything of substance.
It is one of those questions that you will get a different answer to depending on who you ask and how they define the term.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Iseul, I know you have some interesting and controversial ideas on patriarchy and sexuality, so I want to ask you: do you think transsexual female-to-males really benefit from the patriarchy? and remember: if you say that they don't because they're transsexual and thus exempt, then you're not treating transsexuals like the males they may have become, as then you are slicing things into "us" vs "them" paradigms.

I think FtM's are not oppressed by patriarchy as women but as someone who crosses that [oh so sacred:rolleyes:] gender binary box.

Us MtF's on the otherhand...

[Zeus the Moose]

I think the argument would be that men benefit from patriarchy and thus are sexist. Sort of the same as the "all white people are racist because they benefit from white privilege", except the former is way shakier.

It is probably something along those lines, but I can't remember for sure so I didn't want to claim it as such. Or similarly, men cannot truly understand the oppression of women, so they're unable to fight against it in the fullest sense. As you say, it's very shaky ground, and IMO leads to separatism which objectively serves the interests of capital.

[Invincible Summer]

It is probably something along those lines, but I can't remember for sure so I didn't want to claim it as such. Or similarly, men cannot truly understand the oppression of women, so they're unable to fight against it in the fullest sense. As you say, it's very shaky ground, and IMO leads to separatism which objectively serves the interests of capital.


IIRC, it's radical feminism (not to be confused with feminist radicals a la anarchist feminists) that is based on biological determinism that makes claims like this.

[BeerShaman]

I think this whole thread, like a lot of discussions on the topic of "feminism", is basically splitting hairs over semantics and not really addressing anything of substance.
It is one of those questions that you will get a different answer to depending on who you ask and how they define the term.
Well... That's what I want...

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul, I know you have some interesting and controversial ideas on patriarchy and sexuality,


How are my ideas "controversial"? Last time I checked, the majority of this forum supports LGBT rights and gender equality.



so I want to ask you: do you think transsexual female-to-males really benefit from the patriarchy? and remember: if you say that they don't because they're transsexual and thus exempt, then you're not treating transsexuals like the males they may have become, as then you are slicing things into "us" vs "them" paradigms.

Trans-men are men so yes perhaps they do benefit a bit from patriarchy, but this doesn't in any way make patriarchy less wrong. Also, being trans people they would also experience transphobia "over and above" the partial privilege they might receive for being men.

The existence of patriarchy is one reason why trans-men have a slightly easier time than trans-women. Generally speaking in most forms of class societies, it is more acceptable for women to "act like men" than the other way around, because all forms of class societies are sexist and intrinsically value men more than women, so a FtM "increases in social value" while a MtF "decreases in social value". But this also means generally speaking transwomen are more likely to be more radical than transmen as we benefit less from the existing power structure in capitalist society. It was a trans-woman who initiated the contemporary leftist LGBT movement in the 1960s.

[Achara]

To be honest, if someone desribed themselves as a 'male feminist' I'd find it kind of odd; what the hell does your gender have to do with being a feminist or not? It implies that feminism, i.e. the general concept that the sexes should be socially equal, is only for women and therefore the male has to qualify that YES he's a male BUT is also a feminist :blink:. It would be as bizarre as someone saying that they're a male Marxist, or a female Trotskyist...

[Red Poplar]

:confused: Call me dumb, but if feminism advocates equal rights for men and women, then why is it called "feminism" (femina=woman)? It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked.

I consider myself a proponent of gender equality, but not a male feminist. Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism.

[BeerShaman]

:confused: Call me dumb, but if feminism advocates equal rights for men and women, then why is it called "feminism" (femina=woman)? It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked.

I consider myself a proponent of gender equality, but not a male feminist. Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism.
Well yes, but I don't know of any woman beating her husbnad. Then again, that was also one of my matters... I should have typed it before. Shouldn't we better call it gender equalization? Maybe feminism should be called the female supporting of it, which has as a central role the protection of women.

[Queercommie Girl]

Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism.

I've never heard of this brand of "feminism". Care to provide some evidence?

[Queercommie Girl]

Maybe feminism should be called the female supporting of it, which has as a central role the protection of women.

What do you mean?

And the very fact that you consider feminism to be for the "protection" of women rather than the emancipation of women shows your unconcious bias. Women don't need male "knights in shining armour" to protect them.

[Red Poplar]

I've heard of violence against men, it once appeared in the newspapers. It's not easy to find evidence for that, since every man would feel more than embarassed to report being beaten by a woman. I've found a link, but I can't post it here because my post count is below 25. :blushing:

[BeerShaman]

What do you mean?

And the very fact that you consider feminism to be for the "protection" of women rather than the emancipation of women shows your unconcious bias. Women don't need male "knights in shining armour" to protect them.
Don't be hasty on your thoughts. I didn't say women need men's protection. But because of the fact that if we want equalization of the genders we should support women's rights, because the female is oppressed, I said that maybe feminist should be called someone who supports their rights. And well ,this one is a feminist. I said that if feminism means the effort for equalization of genders generally, I consider it more right being called just equalization of genders (and not feminism which is centralizing on the femini role)...

[Queercommie Girl]

I've heard of violence against men, it once appeared in the newspapers. It's not easy to find evidence for that, since every man would feel more than embarassed to report being beaten by a woman. I've found a link, but I can't post it here because my post count is below 25. :blushing:

But according to you it did definitely happen, so what's the point of denying it?

Isn't this kind of sentiment itself a partial reflection of the patriarchal mind-set?

[BeerShaman]

When you support women's rights, you protect them from oppression... Where did the brave knights in shining armour come from?:lol:

[Queercommie Girl]

Don't be hasty on your thoughts. I didn't say women need men's protection. But because of the fact that if we want equalization of the genders we should support women's rights, because the female is oppressed, I said that maybe feminist should be called someone who supports their rights. And well ,this one is a feminist. I said that if feminism means the effort for equalization of genders generally, I consider it more right being called just equalization of genders (and not feminism which is centralizing on the femini role)...

The reason is a historical one. In the concrete sense most "gender equalists" in the past have been women and feminists, not men. Since men actually by and large benefit from the patriarchal social structure they are not so hot about fighting for "gender equality", just as the majority of capitalists don't care about social justice in the socialist sense.

[BeerShaman]

The reason is a historical one. In the concrete sense most "gender equalists" in the past have been women and feminists, not men. Since men actually by and large benefit from the patriarchal social structure they are not so hot about fighting for "gender equality", just as the majority of capitalists don't care about social justice in the socialist sense.
Ok I understand. I think just that the term gender equalization is more accurate...

[meow]

:confused: Call me dumb, but if feminism advocates equal rights for men and women, then why is it called "feminism" (femina=woman)? It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked.

I consider myself a proponent of gender equality, but not a male feminist. Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism.


I've heard of violence against men, it once appeared in the newspapers. It's not easy to find evidence for that, since every man would feel more than embarassed to report being beaten by a woman. I've found a link, but I can't post it here because my post count is below 25. :blushing:
i dont know why feminism is called that. but yes it could equally be called "gender equality"ism. women who believe women to be superier to men are not feminists in the socialist sense of the word.

and yes domestic violence occurs against men from women (but much less often then the other way) just like rape occures against men from women (and against much less often then the other way).

but this doesnt meant htat feminism is somehow wrong then. feminism (gender equality ism) is still just as valid as ever. it would be like saying that communism is invalid because the ussr was communist and look at them. no they werent communist. and communism is still valid. (communism of course being a stateless society where the workers control the means of production etc. etc.)

[Red Poplar]

@Iseul: "Isn't this kind of sentiment itself a partial reflection of the patriarchal mind-set?"

Yes it is, I don't deny it. Even though many of us managed to overcome it, patriarchal mind-set is still present in our society as a whole. That's why a man beaten by a woman would have to face mocking and disrespect from the society, regardless of his mind-set.

[Achara]

:confused: Call me dumb.

You're dumb.


if feminism advocates equal rights for men and women, then why is it called "feminism" (femina=woman)?

Maybe 'cos for the sexes to be equal it isn't a matter of abstractly arguing for the equal rights of men and women, but for the actual struggle for the improvement of the lives and social roles of women... and since its women who are ones who are structurally disadvantaged then its hardly surprising that the movement named itself on the basis of improving the lives for women.

But seriously, what is this shit? Why does the NAACP include in its name 'colored'...? Maybe because its a movement about lol advancing the position of colored folk? Does that mean that the NAACP therefore argues for the oppression of white people? Do you see the fallacy of your views?


It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked. Yeah, oppressed groups shouldn't oppress their oppressers because iT iS baD. Whatever, idiot. Your jumps in logic are humorous at best.


Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism. Fucking lol.

Maybe if you stopped letting Glen Beck define words for you, you might actually not look like a complete fucktard.

[Red Poplar]

Achara, you can state your opinion without insulting other people, you know. Your views may be closer to the truth than mine, but you lack any emotional intelligence to demonstrate them properly.

[Queercommie Girl]

IIRC, it's radical feminism (not to be confused with feminist radicals a la anarchist feminists) that is based on biological determinism that makes claims like this.

Men can join the feminist movement, but men should never lead the feminist movement. So feminism should not actually be completely "sex-blind".

[Hiratsuka]

Maybe 'cos for the sexes to be equal it isn't a matter of abstractly arguing for the equal rights of men and women, but for the actual struggle for the improvement of the lives and social roles of women... and since its women who are ones who are structurally disadvantage

In which ways?

Seems like there's a variety of issues where men get the short end of the stick, too. And unlike the politics of race, it's not an instance of individual discrimination but systematic expectations and hurdles. Most white people will never face negative discrimination beyond affirmative action programs and cliques. Most men will.

I don't identify as a feminist because I disagree with the notion that patriarchy alone is to blame for the tribulations men face, that men shouldn't co-lead a gender revolution, that men are almost in every circumstance better off than women. Like I said in a different thread, I went through a false rape accusation that really enlightened me on some of the dirtier corners in gender politics. I was told by women "all men are pigs" or "all men are capable of rape" when I pleaded my innocence. That's an idea enforced by some women and not at all apparent in the minds of men. Furthermore, a lot of what once was patriarchy is now enforced the most by women for their own benefit.

I'm not a misogynist, just highly skeptical of what one intends to do when he or she says "men need to join the movement, but shut up and not try to be a leader."

[IndependentCitizen]

Feminism = equal rights for every gender, but is predominantly made up with Women?

Then yes, I'm a feminist. I believe women should lead the fight for equal rights, and I will support them but refuse to take a leading role. Their fight must be supported, not lead by the likes of myself.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't identify as a feminist because I disagree with the notion that patriarchy alone is to blame for the tribulations men face, that men shouldn't co-lead a gender revolution, that men are almost in every circumstance better off than women.


That's not the case, but the interesting thing is that often the greatest oppressors of disadvantaged men are other men, not women. That is a manifestation of patriarchy.

Take expectations for instance. Culturally men are expected to always be an "iron john" and never show any kind of "emotional weakness" even when it's objectively not healthy for him to do so. But suppose a man deliberately breaks this implicit cultural rule and starts to actually cry like a woman, it won't be other women who would laugh at the men the hardest, in fact some women may even feel sympathetic, just like some women like to befriend "effeminate" gay men even though there is absolutely no romance involved, it would be other men who would give this block a hard time. Similarly, most homophobes against gay men are other men, not women, which is why many people say homophobia won't disappear until sexism does.

The problem with many men is that implicitly they still assume that masculine traits are intrinsically superior than feminine ones. Even when they do really think that they are literally disadvantaged with respect to women they still think that fundamentally it is "better" to be a man than a woman. I've heard girls who are not transgendered in any sense at all saying stuff like "I wish I was a boy" so that she wouldn't have to face all the sexism and structural disadvantage against women, but frankly I've never heard straight cis-gendered men saying "I wish I was female" just because he believes he is being structurally disadvantaged relative to women. So either the "structural disadvantage males face sometimes" isn't that real in the concrete socio-economic sense or deep down in their hearts these men still feel they are superior to women. If this kind of attitude is taken into the feminist movement, it would act to distort the movement with its masculinist bias.

The problem with trying to form a "masculinist" movement parallel with the "feminist" movement is precisely this: the most serious oppressors of women are not other women, but other men; but the most serious oppressors of men are indeed other men. So frankly it is difficult to form a kind of "comprehensive gender solidarity" that would be required for this kind of movement among men.

[Obzervi]

feminist is merely believing in gender equality. surely there can be male feminists...


Wrong. Feminism is believing in female supremacy, more specifically white female supremacy.

[Invincible Summer]

Wrong. Feminism is believing in female supremacy, more specifically white female supremacy.

Then please explain why there are many feminists - prominent ones at that - of colour?

If anything, third-wave/post-feminism (in the "power feminism" or "fun feminism" sense, not post-modern/post-structuralist sense) is dominated by and works for the interests of white, privileged women.

[Hiratsuka]

That's not the case, but the interesting thing is that often the greatest oppressors of disadvantaged men are other men, not women. That is a manifestation of patriarchy.

Take expectations for instance. Culturally men are expected to always be an "iron john" and never show any kind of "emotional weakness" even when it's objectively not healthy for him to do so. But suppose a man deliberately breaks this implicit cultural rule and starts to actually cry like a woman, it won't be other women who would laugh at the men the hardest, in fact some women may even feel sympathetic, just like some women like to befriend "effeminate" gay men even though there is absolutely no romance involved, it would be other men who would give this block a hard time.

I've found that a lot of women are just as hurtful when it comes to rejecting emotional men. The main difference is one of implicit reaction: men are generally taught to be upfront with their disdain, whereas women learn to speak behind one's back. I hate anecdotes, but I'm a rather promiscuous cis-gendered heterosexual male, and it's been more than a few times when I've been told by the woman that she wants a 'real' man. I don't consider myself an 'emotional' man - I'm not practicing machismo, but I'm generally turned off by anyone who identifies as 'emotional.' And it's not just fathers who are instilling these behaviors; it's mothers too.




The problem with many men is that implicitly they still assume that masculine traits are intrinsically superior than feminine ones. Even when they do really think that they are literally disadvantaged with respect to women they still think that fundamentally it is "better" to be a man than a woman. I've heard girls who are not transgendered in any sense at all saying stuff like "I wish I was a boy" so that she wouldn't have to face all the sexism and structural disadvantage against women, but frankly I've never heard straight cis-gendered men saying "I wish I was female" just because he believes he is being structurally disadvantaged relative to women.

I have. Especially when it comes to divorce law where courts clearly flavor women or in undergraduate education where women can find a slew of financial assistance just for them despite now being the majority and most educated.

Being a man is not a constant rose bed full of joy, and it's not always "patriarchy" that's to blame.


The problem with many men is that implicitly they still assume that masculine traits are intrinsically superior than feminine ones.

We have users on this forum who refer to men as Neanderthals. It's a two-way road. A lot of women feel that they're more compassionate and level-headed than men. How many times has it been said that men only think with their lower heads?


The problem with trying to form a "masculinist" movement parallel with the "feminist" movement is precisely this: the most serious oppressors of women are not other women, but other men; but the most serious oppressors of men are indeed other men. So frankly it is difficult to form a kind of "comprehensive gender solidarity" that would be required for this kind of movement among men.

And that thought process is exactly why most men will never become or identify as feminist.

[Queercommie Girl]

I've found that a lot of women are just as hurtful when it comes to rejecting emotional men. The main difference is one of implicit reaction: men are generally taught to be upfront with their disdain, whereas women learn to speak behind one's back. I hate anecdotes, but I'm a rather promiscuous cis-gendered heterosexual male, and it's been more than a few times when I've been told by the woman that she wants a 'real' man. I don't consider myself an 'emotional' man - I'm not practicing machismo, but I'm generally turned off by anyone who identifies as 'emotional.' And it's not just fathers who are instilling these behaviors; it's mothers too.


Yes, but not as much as men do. This is also why for instance that most homophobes against gay men are other men, not women. More mothers defend their gay sons than fathers do.

And who do you think commits most of the homophobic and transphobic hate crimes around the world? It's men not women. So as a LGBT activist I have no choice but to see reactionary men as a bigger threat to our community than reactionary women. Generally speaking, existing "men's movements" tend to be relatively right-wing and anti-LGBT, except the pro-feminist men's movement. Feminism on the other hand is, in the majority of instances, an ally to LGBT liberation.

And frankly, yourself seems to be an example of a man who doesn't like "emotional" men.



I have. Especially when it comes to divorce law where courts clearly flavor women or in undergraduate education where women can find a slew of financial assistance just for them despite now being the majority and most educated.


Then maybe you should change sex too! :D (just kidding)

The thing is that the entire institution of marriage as it exists now under class society is reactionary, just that it impacts men and women in different ways.

But I've never heard of women students getting explicit financial support just because they are women.



Being a man is not a constant rose bed full of joy, and it's not always "patriarchy" that's to blame.


Patriarchy is mostly to blame, both directly and indirectly. You could say that the minority of "man-hating" opinions among ultra-radical "feminists" is ultimately an excessive kind of response against the oppression they've suffered under men. If patriarchy didn't exist in the first place, ultra-radical feminism wouldn't either.



We have users on this forum who refer to men as Neanderthals. It's a two-way road. A lot of women feel that they're more compassionate and level-headed than men. How many times has it been said that men only think with their lower heads?


I've never heard that. Could you provide a link?



And that thought process is exactly why most men will never become or identify as feminist.


But it's not just a "thought process", it's a fact. And actually nowadays many left-wing and progressive men are becoming more pro-feminist. Your views do not speak for "most men".

[AK]

:confused: Call me dumb, but if feminism advocates equal rights for men and women, then why is it called "feminism" (femina=woman)? It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked.

I consider myself a proponent of gender equality, but not a male feminist. Feminists include a variety of women, including those who literally beat their husbands if they don't bow to them for every lunch made, and that borders with extremism.
I'd really like to see a source on this. Feminism isn't about matriarchy or beating up and oppressing males for revenge; it is purely about gender equality - it is named femin-ism because it has been and still is nearly always the female gender which has been economically oppressed for most of human history (except for example in parts of Papua New Guinea, where the gender roles are reversed from the rest of human society).

I've heard of violence against men, it once appeared in the newspapers. It's not easy to find evidence for that, since every man would feel more than embarassed to report being beaten by a woman. I've found a link, but I can't post it here because my post count is below 25. :blushing:
So these kind of things are isolated incidents?

Men can join the feminist movement, but men should never lead the feminist movement. So feminism should not actually be completely "sex-blind".
It should be sex-blind in terms of leadership. It should be a conscious movement in the whole of the working class to strive for gender equality. The name is somewhat misleading as it makes it sound like a womens'-only movement - which couldn't be further from the truth these days. I've explained the reason for the naming above.

Wrong. Feminism is believing in female supremacy, more specifically white female supremacy.
Whilst some batshit-insane motherfuckers might agree with you on the first part of your post, there is absolutely nothing about the concept of feminism or the terminology it uses which excludes non-whites from the movement.

[Adi Shankara]

Yes, but not as much as men do. This is also why for instance that most homophobes against gay men are other men, not women. More mothers defend their gay sons than fathers do.

I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard. :rolleyes: Care to provide any comprehensive evidence for this at all? because evidence seems to suggest that most gay men have troubled relationships with their mothers than vice versa:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm

And speaking from personal experience (which of course isn't scientific, but still) I have yet to meet gay man who had a good relationship with his mother.

[Queercommie Girl]

I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard. :rolleyes: Care to provide any comprehensive evidence for this at all? because evidence seems to suggest that most gay men have troubled relationships with their mothers than vice versa:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm


Actually the link you have provided seems to suggest the opposite:

Gay men tend to have had negative relationships with their fathers, half of them (compared with a quarter of heterosexuals) feeling anger, resentment and fear towards fathers whom they deem cold, hostile, detached or submissive.

They do not see their fathers as role models.

More than 70 per cent feel dissimilar to them while growing up (against a third of heterosexuals) and more similar to their mother. About half feel that their mothers did not want them to be like their fathers, and more than two thirds feel that their mothers dominated their fathers.

And what's with the personal-level hostility? Are you just feeling frustrated for no reason since no-one on this forum seems to like you?

And the most important issue here is that even a completely illiterate and idiotic dumbass like you can't deny that the vast majority of serious homophobes and transphobes are men, not women.

[Adi Shankara]

Actually the link you have provided seems to suggest the opposite:

Gay men tend to have had negative relationships with their fathers, half of them (compared with a quarter of heterosexuals) feeling anger, resentment and fear towards fathers whom they deem cold, hostile, detached or submissive.

They do not see their fathers as role models.

More than 70 per cent feel dissimilar to them while growing up (against a third of heterosexuals) and more similar to their mother. About half feel that their mothers did not want them to be like their fathers, and more than two thirds feel that their mothers dominated their fathers.

You selectively cherry-picked this factoid, ignoring the part about "domineering, controlling mothers" who emasculate and control the men in their family. as well as the mothers who basically flirt with their sons. Because incestuous innuendo is such a great thing, right? Also, it doesn't suggest they were abused by their fathers, just that they viewed their fathers with anger, resentment, and fear. it doesn't even suggest the fathers were abusive like you suggested.


And what's with the personal-level hostility? Are you just feeling frustrated for no reason since no-one on this forum seems to like you?

1.) I don't need anyone to like me on here. It's not a popularity contest. I have friends. I don't need bozo armchair revolutionaries bugging me IRL either. The few who do hate me on here, I really can't stand to be honest and would've been banned if I were in charge, so they have more patience with me than I would with them.

2.) No, I just can't stand how much authority you assume when you type, considering you know nothing at all.


And the most important issue here is that even a completely illiterate and idiotic dumbass like you can't deny that the vast majority of serious homophobes and transphobes are men, not women.

Except when they're not:

http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine-odonnell-homosexuality-identity-disorder/story?id=11681981 (This was even in the news today)


I just really think you want to blame men for all the problems relating to transphobia and homophobia, when that is a misguided idiotic attempt to assess blame.

[Queercommie Girl]

You selectively cherry-picked this factoid, ignoring the part about "domineering, controlling mothers" who emasculate and control the men in their family. as well as the mothers who basically flirt with their sons. Because incestuous innuendo is such a great thing, right? Also, it doesn't suggest they were abused by their fathers, just that they viewed their fathers with anger, resentment, and fear. it doesn't even suggest the fathers were abusive like you suggested.


It's a theory, not a "factoid".

The whole idea about "domineering" mothers is pretty bullshit since it's related to the reactionary idea that women can't be dominant, so when mothers become more dominant relative to fathers, there must be something wrong. *gasp*

The article sounds like homosexuality is something "abnormal" compared with heterosexuality, like it's the product of "incestuous" mother-son relationship. When in fact generalised bi-sexuality is actually more "normal" than exclusive heterosexuality, the latter being a product of class society.

The point about "emasculating" is bullshit too, since what exactly is wrong with men acting like women anyway? There is no need to somehow label it as "abnormal" by trying to explain it using an "emasculating hypothesis".




1.) I don't need anyone to like me on here. It's not a popularity contest. I have friends. I don't need bozo armchair revolutionaries bugging me IRL either. The few who do hate me on here, I really can't stand to be honest and would've been banned if I were in charge, so they have more patience with me than I would with them.
All your obsession with religion seems to have taught you absolutely nothing in the way of wisdom and patience then.

For the record, I didn't hate you. If anything, between us it's always you who comes out with the unjustified personal insults first.



2.) No, I just can't stand how much authority you assume when you type, considering you know nothing at all.
I'm just stating things plainly and making my arguments and points. It's due to your poor English standard that you seem to imagine me as preaching as if I possess some kind of "high authority".



Except when they're not:

http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine-odonnell-homosexuality-identity-disorder/story?id=11681981 (This was even in the news today)
I'm not looking at anecdotal evidence, but statistical evidence. I don't deny there are serious transphobes and homophobes among women, but the majority are clearly men. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.



I just really think you want to blame men for all the problems relating to transphobia and homophobia, when that is a misguided idiotic attempt to assess blame.
No I don't blame all men for homophobia/transphobia, but to a significant extent I do blame patriarchy, which is not the same thing, since most progressive and pro-feminist men of all sexualities also oppose patriarchy, as well as most genuine socialists of any gender. The association between homophobia/transphobia and patriarchy is something most modern Marxists, feminists and LGBT theorists would understand.

I just really think you are a closet homophobe/transphobe and a supporter of the idea that "traditional rigid gender roles are the best" but you care too much about "political correctness" to come out with your ideas directly. I suggest you join a right-wing men's movement like the "promise keepers" in the US rather than wasting time here on a radical leftist forum. I now seriously doubt that you are a genuine progressive socialist at all.

[Obzervi]

Actually the link you have provided seems to suggest the opposite:

Gay men tend to have had negative relationships with their fathers, half of them (compared with a quarter of heterosexuals) feeling anger, resentment and fear towards fathers whom they deem cold, hostile, detached or submissive.

They do not see their fathers as role models.

More than 70 per cent feel dissimilar to them while growing up (against a third of heterosexuals) and more similar to their mother. About half feel that their mothers did not want them to be like their fathers, and more than two thirds feel that their mothers dominated their fathers.

And what's with the personal-level hostility? Are you just feeling frustrated for no reason since no-one on this forum seems to like you?

And the most important issue here is that even a completely illiterate and idiotic dumbass like you can't deny that the vast majority of serious homophobes and transphobes are men, not women.

Correlation does not equal causation though. If more homosexual males feel detachment from their fathers than heterosexuals, it could be due to their homosexual nature in the first place which caused them to take an interest in "non-masculine" things and behavior which created an inability to relate to the heterosexual father.

For the record I am a bisexual male and I did grow up in a single parent household with a domineering mother who injected negative feelings towards my father in me.

[Queercommie Girl]

I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard. :rolleyes: Care to provide any comprehensive evidence for this at all? because evidence seems to suggest that most gay men have troubled relationships with their mothers than vice versa:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm (http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm)

And speaking from personal experience (which of course isn't scientific, but still) I have yet to meet gay man who had a good relationship with his mother.

Yes, trust Shankara to quote sources originating from a right-wing religious website:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/home.htm

With this kind of views on abortion rights:

30 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States approved legislation effectively determining the ‘legal right’ of a woman to terminate a pregnancy virtually at any time of gestation up to very point of delivery of a live child; a judgement that hastened the growth of the infamous ‘pro-choice’ movement.

And on homosexuality:

To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. Paul Rondeau, a doctoral student in persuasion studies at Regent University, says the strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight"for the good of American values.


Talk about being reactionary...
:rolleyes:

[Adi Shankara]

Yes, trust Shankara to quote sources originating from a right-wing religious website:

http://www.albatrus.org/english/home.htm

With this kind of views on abortion rights:

30 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States approved legislation effectively determining the ‘legal right’ of a woman to terminate a pregnancy virtually at any time of gestation up to very point of delivery of a live child; a judgement that hastened the growth of the infamous ‘pro-choice’ movement.

And on homosexuality:

To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. Paul Rondeau, a doctoral student in persuasion studies at Regent University, says the strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight"for the good of American values.


Talk about being reactionary...
:rolleyes:

It was quoting a Time's article. the website is immaterial.

[Queercommie Girl]

It was quoting a Time's article. the website is immaterial.

It's not immaterial in the sense that the information provided on a reactionary site is very likely to be bogus yet you are using that as an argument against me. But then what can I expect from a closet transphobe/homophobe/sexist like you who thinks transwomen shouldn't "*****" about the oppression they suffer under and "make a victims of themselves" but should rather start to "act like a man" and bottle up their feelings?

[Queercommie Girl]

Correlation does not equal causation though. If more homosexual males feel detachment from their fathers than heterosexuals, it could be due to their homosexual nature in the first place which caused them to take an interest in "non-masculine" things and behavior which created an inability to relate to the heterosexual father.

For the record I am a bisexual male and I did grow up in a single parent household with a domineering mother who injected negative feelings towards my father in me.

It doesn't really matter. The key thing is that this whole scheme of attempting to "explain" homosexuality in terms of some kind of "flaw" in one's family relations, whether on the mother's side or the father's side, is fundamentally flawed itself, because implicitly it is still assuming that homosexuality is something intrinsically "abnormal" relative to heterosexuality.

[Queercommie Girl]

It should be sex-blind in terms of leadership. It should be a conscious movement in the whole of the working class to strive for gender equality. The name is somewhat misleading as it makes it sound like a womens'-only movement - which couldn't be further from the truth these days. I've explained the reason for the naming above.


While feminism clearly is pro-gender equality, technically the feminist movement and the movement for gender equality aren't exactly congruent. Feminism is after all by definition a women's movement, and therefore it is based on women's self-emancipation. If men begin to lead the women's movement, it would be like "vanguardist" people from non-working class backgrounds leading the worker's movement.

However, there is nothing wrong with having a pro-feminist men's movement that caters more to male-specific issues that also fights for gender equality alongside the women's movement. In fact, a pro-feminist men's movement is the only kind of men's movement that is progressive, all other kinds of men's movements are reactionary. But there is no reason why there cannot be a men's movement in principle. Men don't suffer from oppression placed on them by women, but some men at least also suffer from gender inequality that exists in society, e.g. gay men.

[EvilRedGuy]

Can we please call them Malinists, Malenists, or Mascunist if we have to take it even more correctly.

[GreenCommunism]

In which ways?

Seems like there's a variety of issues where men get the short end of the stick, too. And unlike the politics of race, it's not an instance of individual discrimination but systematic expectations and hurdles. Most white people will never face negative discrimination beyond affirmative action programs and cliques. Most men will.

I don't identify as a feminist because I disagree with the notion that patriarchy alone is to blame for the tribulations men face, that men shouldn't co-lead a gender revolution, that men are almost in every circumstance better off than women. Like I said in a different thread, I went through a false rape accusation that really enlightened me on some of the dirtier corners in gender politics. I was told by women "all men are pigs" or "all men are capable of rape" when I pleaded my innocence. That's an idea enforced by some women and not at all apparent in the minds of men. Furthermore, a lot of what once was patriarchy is now enforced the most by women for their own benefit.

I'm not a misogynist, just highly skeptical of what one intends to do when he or she says "men need to join the movement, but shut up and not try to be a leader."

while i do want to ignore the rape issue, it seems it is a slap in the face of every man raped in prison,as children or by woman when they take the whole rape issue as being something only they suffer. pamphlets about rape only talk about woman and explicitly make sure to write that 98% of men are the agressor while leaving the % of male victims away.

this is why i am an equality feminist and dream of an androgyne world. in fact think i will from now on refuse to call myself a feminist since my goal is to live in a world where one's genital doesn't have anything to do with a social role.

for the record, i changed my mind about feminism a little while ago, the real problem are not the feminist, but the woman who pretend to be, those that don't give a shit about gender equality but reap the gains of feminism are the most men-hating, most feminist, just like in the case of racism( to be clear i am talking about all oppressed nationality,not just anti-racist activist) do not engage in reverse-sexism or reverse-racism, not because it isn't tempting ,but because it's downright retarded to know so much about the various mechanism of sexism and racism though from the oppressor group then going through those same mechanism against the oppressor.

also, i would like to state that rape is a very violent and destructive thing, if done without the use of drugs to sedate the victim, one need to be quite a sick fuck to do this. this is something many woman cannot get through their head, if a man does not regret rape when faced in court with a crying woman, you either have a very strong case of mysogeny or you have a person with anti-social personality disorder who simply cannot regret murder anyway. most serial rapist simply fit that case of being reckless with other people's safety and a lack of remorse.

[Quail]

also, i would like to state that rape is a very violent and destructive thing, if done without the use of drugs to sedate the victim, one need to be quite a sick fuck to do this. this is something many woman cannot get through their head, if a man does not regret rape when faced in court with a crying woman, you either have a very strong case of mysogeny or you have a person with anti-social personality disorder who simply cannot regret murder anyway. most serial rapist simply fit that case of being reckless with other people's safety and a lack of remorse.

What? Rape isn't violent or destructive if the perpertrator uses drugs to sedate the victim?

I can understand what you're getting at in that people often associate rape with male on female assault. However, in a movement that involves a lot of women, I think that when dealing with delicate issues such as rape, some women might not feel comfortable discussing it in a room with men so there might be more focus on female victims. I don't see a problem with that, because the feminist movement is based on women's emancipation, so feminists should deal with problems that are affecting women. It would be wrong if it was ever implied that men are never victims or women are never perpertrators, but I don't think that happens (at least, it hasn't in my experience). The truth is that a lot of women aren't taken seriously, especially if alcohol or drugs were involved.

[GreenCommunism]

What? Rape isn't violent or destructive if the perpertrator uses drugs to sedate the victim?
omfg, i never meant to say that. i meant you probably have to be quite violent to do it without using drugs. unless perhaps if you dehumanize woman with misogeny. wrong grammer, jesus christ :ohmy:.


I can understand what you're getting at in that people often associate rape with male on female assault. However, in a movement that involves a lot of women, I think that when dealing with delicate issues such as rape, some women might not feel comfortable discussing it in a room with men so there might be more focus on female victims. I don't see a problem with that, because the feminist movement is based on women's emancipation, so feminists should deal with problems that are affecting women. It would be wrong if it was ever implied that men are never victims or women are never perpertrators, but I don't think that happens (at least, it hasn't in my experience). The truth is that a lot of women aren't taken seriously, especially if alcohol or drugs were involved.

yes i guess i can understand, and mens will often try to act as protector, as if woman are game to hunt which you need to follow the 'rules' else it's not fair game for other mens. they don't imply that it never happens otherwise, i just feel that this is always what is assumed, i just don't feel there is much of a retributive justice when male are victim unless they were children. i think rape is rarely taken as seriously as it really is.

my point is that mens who commit those crimes aren't just regular mens being assholes, they most certainly went through psychological distress and suffered violence, i feel that they attack woman because attacking mens seem impossible to them for some reason, i don't know how to explain this well in english. big fish eat small fish may be how to explain it?

[Quail]

omfg, i never meant to say that. i meant you probably have to be quite violent to do it without using drugs. unless perhaps if you dehumanize woman with misogeny. wrong grammer, jesus christ :ohmy:.

Ah okay, good. I can tell English isn't your first language. I guess that kind of thing is easily done. No worries.


yes i guess i can understand, and mens will often try to act as protector, as if woman are game to hunt which you need to follow the 'rules' else it's not fair game for other mens. they don't imply that it never happens otherwise, i just feel that this is always what is assumed, i just don't feel there is much of a retributive justice when male are victim unless they were children. i think rape is rarely taken as seriously as it really is.

my point is that mens who commit those crimes aren't just regular mens being assholes, they most certainly went through psychological distress and suffered violence, i feel that they attack woman because attacking mens seem impossible to them for some reason, i don't know how to explain this well in english. big fish eat small fish may be how to explain it?

I think your point is that people ternd to abuse people that are weaker than them? I agree that most people who commit antisocial crimes such as rape have suffered some form of trauma themselves, but I don't think that they should be punished. Unless they have a personality disorder, rehabilitation and therapy could help them become a functional member of society again. In general the conviction rate is very low, but the number of assaults reported is also low, and I suspect is lower among male victims, which is also a result of gender stereotypes. I don't think though that people should be arguing that patriarchy is just as bad for men though, because of a few examples of it affecting them negatively. There was a thread about that a while ago, actually, but I can't remember what it was called.

[Rousedruminations]

Men can join the feminist movement, but men should never lead the feminist movement. So feminism should not actually be completely "sex-blind".


I agree with this ;)

[Rousedruminations]

Rehabiliation is always the first option before punishment, as concessions have to be made to those who commit horrendous crimes as they haven't had the best of childhoods ? We must not forget that.

[Queercommie Girl]

while i do want to ignore the rape issue, it seems it is a slap in the face of every man raped in prison,as children or by woman when they take the whole rape issue as being something only they suffer. pamphlets about rape only talk about woman and explicitly make sure to write that 98% of men are the agressor while leaving the % of male victims away.

this is why i am an equality feminist and dream of an androgyne world. in fact think i will from now on refuse to call myself a feminist since my goal is to live in a world where one's genital doesn't have anything to do with a social role.

for the record, i changed my mind about feminism a little while ago, the real problem are not the feminist, but the woman who pretend to be, those that don't give a shit about gender equality but reap the gains of feminism are the most men-hating, most feminist, just like in the case of racism( to be clear i am talking about all oppressed nationality,not just anti-racist activist) do not engage in reverse-sexism or reverse-racism, not because it isn't tempting ,but because it's downright retarded to know so much about the various mechanism of sexism and racism though from the oppressor group then going through those same mechanism against the oppressor.

also, i would like to state that rape is a very violent and destructive thing, if done without the use of drugs to sedate the victim, one need to be quite a sick fuck to do this. this is something many woman cannot get through their head, if a man does not regret rape when faced in court with a crying woman, you either have a very strong case of mysogeny or you have a person with anti-social personality disorder who simply cannot regret murder anyway. most serial rapist simply fit that case of being reckless with other people's safety and a lack of remorse.

Most men are raped by other men, not by women. And we should not forget that many men who experience rape are gay men, who systematically suffer due to gender inequality to a significant extent.

My point still stands: you can have a men's movement but due to the existing unequal relations between the genders in society, the "men's movement" and the "women's movement" are certainly not symmetrically equal. The women's movement challenges patriarchy directly, the men's movement does not challenge matriarchy (because our society is objectively not matriarchical), at most it just challenges excessive ultra-radical "feminism" that is becoming "male-hating".

[#FF0000]

Wrong. Feminism is believing in female supremacy, more specifically white female supremacy.

haha is this a joke post?

[cska]

Male feminist reporting in.

[Queercommie Girl]

I don't think though that people should be arguing that patriarchy is just as bad for men though, because of a few examples of it affecting them negatively. There was a thread about that a while ago, actually, but I can't remember what it was called.


You are right, patriarchy is certainly not "just as bad" for men in general as it is for women in general. However, for a sub-set of men in relatively disadvantaged positions in society it could be nearly as bad, though perhaps in somewhat different ways. For instance gay men and bisexual men. And in fact working class men in general do not benefit as much from patriarchy as capitalist men do, and ethnic minority men (like Blacks and Asians) do not benefit as much from patriarchy as white men do.

[Quail]

You are right, patriarchy is certainly not "just as bad" for men in general as it is for women in general. However, for a sub-set of men in relatively disadvantaged positions in society it could be nearly as bad, though perhaps in somewhat different ways. For instance gay men and bisexual men. And in fact working class men in general do not benefit as much from patriarchy as capitalist men do, and ethnic minority men (like Blacks and Asians) do not benefit as much from patriarchy as white men do.

Agreed. I should have been more specific with my wording.

[GreenCommunism]

My point still stands: you can have a men's movement but due to the existing unequal relations between the genders in society, the "men's movement" and the "women's movement" are certainly not symmetrically equal. The women's movement challenges patriarchy directly, the men's movement does not challenge matriarchy (because our society is objectively not matriarchical), at most it just challenges excessive ultra-radical "feminism" that is becoming "male-hating".

i don't believe in man hating feminism, i believe in a few crazy genocidal books written by feminist not taken seriously by anyone. other than that, mainstream woman who have only slightly heard of feminist theory are probably the most man hating.

i'm also not sure what to say about leadership absolutly being in the hand of woman, i would prefer a group that fights for androgyne-like equality because this is my brand of gender equality movement. to even consider anyone's genital or anatomy when it comes to any social role should be blasphemy.

[Ocean Seal]

If you believe that men and women are fundamentally equal, and you want to make sure that they are treated equally you are a feminist. Therefore, their can be feminists in both sexes.

[GreenCommunism]

If you believe that men and women are fundamentally equal, and you want to make sure that they are treated equally you are a feminist. Therefore, their can be feminists in both sexes.

do you think there should be a woman or men culture?

[anticap]

If you believe that men and women are fundamentally equal, and you want to make sure that they are treated equally you are a feminist. Therefore, their can be feminists in both sexes.

I don't believe that men and women are fundamentally equal. To the contrary, I believe that people in general are fundamentally unequal because people are not clones. However, I believe that we must treat everyone as if they were fundamentally equal because there is no logical basis for preferring one set of traits over another (e.g., whether tallness or shortness is the superior trait will depend on the situation, and since we can't predict every situation we must value tallness and shortness equally).

[GreenCommunism]

And in fact working class men in general do not benefit as much from patriarchy as capitalist men do, and ethnic minority men (like Blacks and Asians) do not benefit as much from patriarchy as white men do.

i'm not sure about this wouldn't patriarchy be similar to white priviledge? as in white people's loyalty is bought in exchange of a few priviledge, wouldn't the same thing happen with patriarchy? though i agree that they do not benefit as much, i wonder if it isn't the same mecanism.

i think gay men can benefit from patriarchy even if as a whole they lose. as for racism, here is an example, a man from quebec who is famous around the world especially in the francophone world went in a high class restaurant in the united states, that person is of black skin and i assume from haiti since many of those with black skin in quebec are from haiti. well when the waiter came and asked for how many seats etc, he talked to his married white girlfriend. this is white supremacism in the united states, however, we have to remember that it presupposes that mens are the leader in the couple and that it is normally mens who are asked for how many seats and types of table. i found that to be a interesting case about racism and feminism, since that man is a an artist with alot of success and money.

[Ocean Seal]

do you think there should be a woman or men culture?
I don't understand the question.


I don't believe that men and women are fundamentally equal. To the contrary, I believe that people in general are fundamentally unequal because people are not clones. However, I believe that we must treat everyone as if they were fundamentally equal because there is no logical basis for preferring one set of traits over another (e.g., whether tallness or shortness is the superior trait will depend on the situation, and since we can't predict every situation we must value tallness and shortness equally).

What I'm trying to say is that while men and women differ in physical traits, one cannot state than one sex is more productive than the other. So in the socialist sense they are both equal and are either part of 2 elements creative and uncreative neither of which can be attributed to sex.

[ContrarianLemming]

the audiobook available on youtube "the myth of male power" would shut up anyone who thought women were oppressed.

[GreenCommunism]

I don't understand the question.

i meant, should there be a seperate men culture and a seperate female culture.


the audiobook available on youtube "the myth of male power" would shut up anyone who thought women were oppressed.

i am listening to it and when he talks about homicide i think about patriarchy, not oppression of woman.

[cska]

the audiobook available on youtube "the myth of male power" would shut up anyone who thought women were oppressed.

This is outrageous bullshit. What a load of crap.

[GreenCommunism]

the guy is actually a leftist(perhaps a liberal) , i havent listened to all of the ebook ,but so far he says there is a problem with books about relationships being aimed almost exclusively to woman, another of his book is woman can't hear what men don't say. he is not a matriarchical paranoid asshole, he sounds like he wants dialogue. i disagree with the title but i think his argument is that society is not male or woman dominated but there are differnet domination in different spheres, which i disagree with, men dominate society much more than woman do especially when it comes to having effective political power.

[cska]

Exactly. The truth is that men dominate nearly every aspect of society. So it isn't like there are pros and cons to being male vs female. Males are almost universally better off than females.

[Queercommie Girl]

Exactly. The truth is that men dominate nearly every aspect of society. So it isn't like there are pros and cons to being male vs female. Males are almost universally better off than females.

There are certain sub-sets of men who are heavily disadvantaged by the present system, such as gay and bi-sexual men.

The most basic division in capitalist society, as Marxism teaches us, is not gender but class. A black working class man isn't necessarily "better off" in concrete socio-economic terms than a white big capitalist woman.

[Queercommie Girl]

Correlation does not equal causation though. If more homosexual males feel detachment from their fathers than heterosexuals, it could be due to their homosexual nature in the first place which caused them to take an interest in "non-masculine" things and behavior which created an inability to relate to the heterosexual father.

For the record I am a bisexual male and I did grow up in a single parent household with a domineering mother who injected negative feelings towards my father in me.

Many heterosexuals also have problematic family relationships. Does this mean these problematic family relationships are the cause of heterosexuality?

The whole logic of looking to justify homosexuality with some kind of problematic family relationship is fundamentally flawed.

[GreenCommunism]

There are certain sub-sets of men who are heavily disadvantaged by the present system, such as gay and bi-sexual men.

The most basic division in capitalist society, as Marxism teaches us, is not gender but class. A black working class man isn't necessarily "better off" in concrete socio-economic terms than a white big capitalist woman.

i think that men who do not fit into the model of patriarchy are the one you talk about. also men on men violence is caused by patriarchy as the stronger mens seeking to display their dominance or that they are real men, the other men who do not fit into the commonly accepted image of patriarchy are then called homophobic or female words as they consider it a slur.

yes a bourgeois woman is better off than a working class black, but i feel that woman will have their ability and achievement minimized more than a black bourgeois.

the question about homosexuality is whether it is purely genetic or it could have something to do with environment, i've always downplayed the non-genetic part as being some extreme-right excuse to deny the genetic part of it but i wouldn't care if it had any influence. it's mostly about oestrogens in food and family roles, i think usually a child prefer his opposite sex parents for some reason if i am not wrong. i am not sure of what i advance so please pardon me if i am wrong.

[anticap]

What I'm trying to say is that while men and women differ in physical traits, one cannot state than one sex is more productive than the other. So in the socialist sense they are both equal and are either part of 2 elements creative and uncreative neither of which can be attributed to sex.

I agree, and I didn't mean to suggest that you were literally equating men and women as though all people were clones; I just felt that it needed to be said because I've had ideological enemies accuse me of doing just that.

[Orange Juche]

Can there be male feminists? While talking with a friend, he claimed that there can be no male feminists. Is this true or not? What do you think. Please mention your stance (feminist or not) and sex (male/female...).
Pesronally, I consider myself a male feminist. Let's start...

Anyone who honestly believes men can't be feminists aren't feminists in the first place. They're female-supremacists. Make of that what you will.

[cska]

Anyone who honestly believes men can't be feminists aren't feminists in the first place. They're female-supremacists. Make of that what you will.

Or they are males who accuse feminism of being female-supremism.