So what would you say are the core tenants of feminism?

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I'll be the first to admit I know close to nothing on the movement. All I've ever seen is that article about how every man was a Rape supporter. Is that a "real" feminist position?

Anyways, my main question is what are the core tennants of feminism.

NOTE: mods if this belongs in the learning section, I apologize.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

moved to learning

:)

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Any female that accuses all men of being rape supporters is a stupid cow. My mum grew up during the feminist movement and shes always told me that feminism is about women recieving the same treatment men do, equal pay, equal treament, equal value.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Any female that accuses all men of being rape supporters is a stupid cow.
And you can't find a better way to express your disagreement than "stupid cow"?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The problem is there really isn't one feminism. Instead, there are many different kinds of feminism. If there's a core tenet shared by most, it's simply the equality of women, although a bourgeois feminist and a socialist feminist would mean different things by that.

[Ostrinski]

-Social, political, and economic quality of all gender identities.

That's it.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The problem is there really isn't one feminism. Instead, there are many different kinds of feminism. If there's a core tenet shared by most, it's simply the equality of women, although a bourgeois feminist and a socialist feminist would mean different things by that.

There is also Lesbian-Feminism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_feminism)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There is also Lesbian-Feminism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_feminism)
They're why I said "a core tenet shared by most," as they tend to have a theoretical problem with anything they perceive as masculine, including butch lesbians and transwomen. To them, some women are more equal than others.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

So, I'm not entirely clear. Are all men rape supporters?

[Bostana]

Well,
Just the fact that Women deserve to have the same rights as men

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

So, I'm not entirely clear. Are all men rape supporters?
I think that would be a minority position within the broad grouping called feminism.

[Luc]

So, I'm not entirely clear. Are all men rape supporters?

FUCK NO


I'm not made just big for emphasis

[Drowzy_Shooter]

FUCK NO


I'm not made just big for emphasis

Cool, just wanted to make sure this wasn't a generally accepted opinion.

[Franz Fanonipants]

restrict anarchist sexist pls

[gorillafuck]

I really don't think that it needs to be emphasized that all men aren't rape supporters. I want to see this article.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i think op is thinking of like andrea dworkin's stuff on rape culture and taking it to the same extreme that "i heard communism is about equality will you cut my feet off if i am taller than someone!?" would be

[black magick hustla]

there are more feminisms than there are anarchisms. its silly to try to say it has "core beliefs". i imagine a more salient definition would be the politics focused on the emancipation of women or something like that.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

And you can't find a better way to express your disagreement than "stupid cow"?

Honestly, no. The belief that all men are inherently pro rape is absurd and could only come from the mind of a feminazi.

[Ostrinski]

Honestly, no. The belief that all men are inherently pro rape is absurd and could only come from the mind of a feminazi.please no

[Red Noob]

A lot of feminism correlates to feminist legal theory. Feminist legal theory is predicated around the idea that society has been structured around overly-masculine ideas. Some also regard masculinity as the source of women's oppression.

Looking into feminist legal theory would better help you understand overall feminism.

In fact, it would help self-proclaimed feminists better understand feminism. :glare:

[Drowzy_Shooter]

I really don't think that it needs to be emphasized that all men aren't rape supporters. I want to see this article.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

There are for sure good points here, but some of them seem a little crazy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There are for sure good points here, but some of them seem a little crazy.
That's a radical feminist site, what I referred to before as a minority position within the broad grouping called feminism. It's also a sex negative and transphobic site, as radfems tend to be.

That said, I agree with much of that particular post about rape-enabling men, but some points like "He watches pornography in which women are depicted" or "He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present" (which could include gay BDSM porn, ffs) are absurd.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Honestly, no. The belief that all men are inherently pro rape is absurd and could only come from the mind of a feminazi.
Now you're using a term coined by Rush fucking Limbaugh? I think RevLeft is the wrong place for you, except perhaps for the Opposing Ideologies forum.

[Ostrinski]

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

There are for sure good points here, but some of them seem a little crazy.These are radical feminists. That is, they are neither radical nor feminist.

[Fawkes]

Honestly, no. The belief that all men are inherently pro rape is absurd and could only come from the mind of a feminazi.

Using that term in any context excepting criticism of its very existence is a slap in the face to every woman alive. Seriously, at least borrow some bullshit liberal term before resorting to fucking rush limbaugh.


To answer the OP, as many have already said, there are more branches of feminism than pretty much any other ideology I can think of. If you're interested in learning more about it, my suggestion would be to check out some of the writings by third-wave feminists/queer theorists such as Cathy Cohen, Judith Butler, and bell hooks. If you can find it, Cathy Cohen wrote a great essay titled Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens which deals primarily with the concept of intersectionality, i.e. the manner in which gender, class, race, and all other identifiers' relations to power intersect and shift depending on the context. She's a far better writer than I am, it's really not as dense as I'm probably making it out to be. Judith Butler, on the other hand, is someone you may want to wait to check out until after you have a pretty solid understanding of some of the more basic concepts -- she can be obnoxiously convoluted at times.

[blake 3:17]

That's a terrible "article". It's terribly moralistic and conflates a huge number of issues, making it useless as any kind of guideline.

Some of the behaviours described I would find very worrying eg" He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification." vs "He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women."

The former is clearly a form of expressed misogyny, the latter could be part of a simple conversation about sexual health and appropriate use of STD prevention and birth control methods.

[manic expression]

These are radical feminists. That is, they are neither radical nor feminist.
The problem is that radical feminism is not an exception to any rule. The truly absurd viewpoints expressed in that article are far more common than many feminists would care to admit openly. Basically, feminists today are of the mentality that if you question their ideas at all, you're sexist and probably a latent rape supporter. Even "mainstream" feminists fall into this (http://jezebel.com/victim-blaming/) mindset. The result is that valid criticisms are labelled as "apologizing for rape", even though there's not a shred of sense to the charge, and feminists end up alienating men and women alike.

As for the idea that feminism is about equality...that stopped being the case decades ago. "Third Wave" feminists, in practice and even in theory, aren't pursuing equality, they're purely partisans for women. Feminists will say to your face, as casual as you like, that they don't care about the male perspective. Men who want to support this sort of feminism are expected to actively disregard their own experience and bury any sympathy they might have once had for themselves. It's actually pretty sad to watch it unfold in front of you.

Lastly, the whole "oh but feminism is so broad so you can't say that" is just a cheap form of side-stepping any responsibility for what feminism says or does. Any possible criticism you'll make of feminism will inevitably spark this fallacy, and the criticism will then be ignored and classified as ignorant and maybe as sexist (for good measure, you see). It's merely another sign of how far feminism has fallen.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Basically, feminists today are of the mentality that if you question their ideas at all, you're sexist and probably a latent rape supporter.
That doesn't correlate with my experience at all, both as someone who's identified as feminist and as someone who's also been critical of some forms of feminism, over two decades of activism.


Even "mainstream" feminists fall into this mindset.
Are we reading the same article?


"Third Wave" feminists, in practice and even in theory, aren't pursuing equality, they're purely partisans for women.
Is there a contradiction between pursuing equality and being a partisan for the oppressed group? Class struggle activists aren't expected to support both workers and capitalists, after all.

[Ostrinski]

The problem is that radical feminism is not an exception to any rule. The truly absurd viewpoints expressed in that article are far more common than many feminists would care to admit openly. Basically, feminists today are of the mentality that if you question their ideas at all, you're sexist and probably a latent rape supporter. Even "mainstream" feminists fall into this (http://jezebel.com/victim-blaming/) mindset. The result is that valid criticisms are labelled as "apologizing for rape", even though there's not a shred of sense to the charge, and feminists end up alienating men and women alike.Bourgeois feminists, would be who you are referring to. I.e. those who engage in identity politics.


As for the idea that feminism is about equality...that stopped being the case decades ago.Bullshit. Definitions of phenomena do not simply change with sub-ideological trends that emerge within them.


"Third Wave" feminists, in practice and even in theory, aren't pursuing equality, they're purely partisans for women. Feminists will say to your face, as casual as you like, that they don't care about the male perspective. Men who want to support this sort of feminism are expected to actively disregard their own experience and bury any sympathy they might have once had for themselves. It's actually pretty sad to watch it unfold in front of you.And third wave feminists are inherently bourgeois for not recognizing the direct interrelation of the struggle against patriarchy to the class struggle. This is like criticizing social democrats and calling it a criticism of socialists.


Lastly, the whole "oh but feminism is so broad so you can't say that" is just a cheap form of side-stepping any responsibility for what feminism says or does. Any possible criticism you'll make of feminism will inevitably spark this fallacy, and the criticism will then be ignored and classified as ignorant and maybe as sexist (for good measure, you see). It's merely another sign of how far feminism has fallen.1. Feminism is broad
2. Criticism of third wave feminism does not stand as a criticism of all feminist currents
3. Why do you recognize feminism as some independent, monolithic crusade? Only bourgeois feminists recognize the struggle against patriarchy as something distinct from the class struggle. There is nothing to account for, anymore than anti-racism has to account for the bourgeois trends that developed under its guise
4. I know you believe in gender equality, but I don't know what you fear about the word 'feminist.' Accept it. Love it. Relax a little.

[manic expression]

That doesn't correlate with my experience at all, both as someone who's identified as feminist and as someone who's also been critical of some forms of feminism, over two decades of activism.
Then we have differing experiences. I've found that feminists are quick to label as sexist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dddgkEg2XSA) anyone who doesn't agree.


Are we reading the same article?
There's just one teeny tiny problem: couch it the trappings of edgy rebellion against the PC police all you want; telling the world that "drinking to the point of blacking out" makes women more vulnerable to rapists is still exactly as brave as Rick Perry coming out as a Christian homophobe.

Drinking to the point of blacking out does make women more vulnerable to rapists. That is simply common sense...trying to compare it to Rick Perry bashing homosexuals is truly inexplicable IMO, and very insensitive to LGBT struggles too.

Believing that being more virtuous than the next girl will keep you safe from rape actually puts you in greater danger, because you're less likely to spot warning signs that you're being targeted if you think you're at less risk. So congrats, pearl-clutchers: you just made life worse for the people who do get raped while drunk (and if you're clutching those pearls in a public forum, you've literally increased the amount of rape in the world), and that smug feeling you derived from it doesn't even reduce your own risk. Well-played.

Wait, does that make any sense at all? No, it really doesn't, it's just trying to categorize as a rape supporter anyone who offers constructive criticism that isn't approved by the radical feminist chorus. It's truly incredible: someone says "hey, maybe women shouldn't get black-out-drunk in social situations where rapes occur unless they're sure there's a group of people they trust there to take care of them", and all of a sudden feminists are saying that that person is not only apologizing for rape, but increasing its frequency. Incredible.


Is there a contradiction between pursuing equality and being a partisan for the oppressed group? Class struggle activists aren't expected to support both workers and capitalists, after all.
Right, but class struggle ideologies don't pretend to promote equality between workers and capitalists for reasons we all comprehend.

[manic expression]

Bourgeois feminists, would be who you are referring to. I.e. those who engage in identity politics.
OK, but bourgeois feminists aren't exactly hard to find in feminist circles.


Bullshit. Definitions of phenomena do not simply change with sub-ideological trends that emerge within them.
I'm looking at what those trends are saying, and they're not talking about equality, or more importantly they're not acting like they want it.


And third wave feminists are inherently bourgeois for not recognizing the direct interrelation of the struggle against patriarchy to the class struggle. This is like criticizing social democrats and calling it a criticism of socialists.
Revolutionary socialists denounced social democrats in no uncertain terms about 90 years ago and have been doing it since. Revolutionary socialists said "social democrats aren't socialists"...feminists who don't like radical feminist nonsense should say the same thing, but I don't see that. If I did I'd applaud it, but I don't.


1. Feminism is broad
2. Criticism of third wave feminism does not stand as a criticism of all feminist currents
3. Why do you recognize feminism as some independent, monolithic crusade? Only bourgeois feminists recognize the struggle against patriarchy as something distinct from the class struggle. There is nothing to account for, anymore than anti-racism has to account for the bourgeois trends that developed under its guise
4. I know you believe in gender equality, but I don't know what you fear about the word 'feminist.' Accept it. Love it. Relax a little.
1.) Sure, but then it ceases to be a meaningful term, does it not?
2/3.) True, but it does stand as criticism of the most current strands of feminism. Elizabeth Cady Stanton isn't writing articles about how I'm a sexist so my arguments don't concern her. On 3, if feminists can't account for feminism than who will?
4.) I tried accepting it, but there was no use trying to care about an ideology that didn't care about me. I'm much more comfortable now than then because I don't have to choose between feminist ideology and who I am.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

It's truly incredible: someone says "hey, maybe women shouldn't get black-out-drunk in social situations where rapes occur unless they're sure there's a group of people they trust there to take care of them", and all of a sudden feminists are saying that that person is not only apologizing for rape, but increasing its frequency. Incredible.
I have to say that "criticism" does sound close to blaming the victim. It's not far from that to "it's your own fault for drinking too much and getting raped." I don't think that's what you mean, but you need to take a step back and consider why it could be interpreted that way instead of lashing out at feminists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I tried accepting it, but there was no use trying to care about an ideology that didn't care about me.
Why should an ideology about women and their liberation specifically be about you and your needs?

[manic expression]

I have to say that "criticism" does sound close to blaming the victim. It's not far from that to "it's your own fault for drinking too much and getting raped." I don't think that's what you mean, but you need to take a step back and consider why it could be interpreted that way instead of lashing out at feminists.
Please explain precisely how that expression is "close to blaming the victim". Again, it's pure common sense to recognize what I said, nothing more, nothing less. The insinuation that one is a rape apologist/victim-blamer because they don't want to see people needlessly put themselves in vulnerable situations is like saying that you're apologizing for theft if you tell someone to lock their doors while they're on away. It's just an indefensibly unfair assertion.


Why should an ideology about women and their liberation specifically be about you and your needs?
I don't ask that at all, all I ask is that the male perspective and male concerns are at least heard, understood and taken into account. A great deal of today's feminists fail to do any of those things.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Now you're using a term coined by Rush fucking Limbaugh? I think RevLeft is the wrong place for you, except perhaps for the Opposing Ideologies forum.

Typical RevLeft response when encountering something something they dont agree with, albeit ideology or mere use of words. Just to let you know, pro-women and anti-men are not the same thing.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Using that term in any context excepting criticism of its very existence is a slap in the face to every woman alive. Seriously, at least borrow some bullshit liberal term before resorting to fucking rush limbaugh.


To answer the OP, as many have already said, there are more branches of feminism than pretty much any other ideology I can think of. If you're interested in learning more about it, my suggestion would be to check out some of the writings by third-wave feminists/queer theorists such as Cathy Cohen, Judith Butler, and bell hooks. If you can find it, Cathy Cohen wrote a great essay titled Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens which deals primarily with the concept of intersectionality, i.e. the manner in which gender, class, race, and all other identifiers' relations to power intersect and shift depending on the context. She's a far better writer than I am, it's really not as dense as I'm probably making it out to be. Judith Butler, on the other hand, is someone you may want to wait to check out until after you have a pretty solid understanding of some of the more basic concepts -- she can be obnoxiously convoluted at times.

Until several days ago i had never heard Rush use the term before, however i dont frequent the steaming pile that is the Rush occupied airwaves. Like i said before, pro-women and anti-men are not the same thing.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

@OP: For a personal account of a Lesbian-Feminists activity see the book When We Were Outlaws by Jean Cordova. (http://www.amazon.com/When-Were-Outlaws-Jeanne-Cordova/dp/1935226517)

[NewLeft]

The first wave feminists are closer to liberalism, not a movement, mostly just individuals writing for women's suffrage. They were the first to notice the inequalities in employment/education, marriage and property rights. Second wave is where radical feminism and socialist feminists became more relevant.. So issues of power at work, their bodies and under the law. Marxists feminists see capitalism as the main source of inequality, radical feminists think that it's gender inequality itself that creates patriarchy (capitalism is irrelevant because inequalities existed before capitalism..) and socialist feminists (the libertarian type) think that gender inequalities under capitalism and in the family are the problem. Only the liberal feminists seperate inequalities at home and at work. Third wave feminism is the post-modern feminism.. They don't care for class distinctions, it's about women as a whole. It's all about empowerment, body image, confidence..

[#FF0000]

Typical RevLeft response when encountering something something they dont agree with, albeit ideology or mere use of words. Just to let you know, pro-women and anti-men are not the same thing.

nah it has nothing to do with 'typical revleft response' and everything to do with the fact that people who say 'feminazi' are dipshits without exception.

[Fawkes]

I'm curious as to whether any of the people bashing third-wave feminism as "bourgeois" or claiming its supposed disregard for class distinctions have ever actually read anything by third-wave feminists, given that what they're saying is literally the direct opposite of what's actually the case.

Spearheaded by individuals such as bell hooks and Cathy Cohen, third-wave feminism arose as a direct response against previous feminist movements' disregard for race, class, and sexuality.

The first-wave focused primarily on women's suffrage while the second-wave was primarily concerned with reproductive rights and sexual violence. Third-wave feminism grew largely out of the black feminism movement and its origins can be traced to the introduction of the theory of intersectionality, which focuses on how race, sex, and class intersect with one another to create a large web of social stratification and oppression.



To the OP, the most basic definition of feminism can be summed up with a statement by bell hooks:
"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression"

[NewLeft]

I'm curious as to whether any of the people bashing third-wave feminism as "bourgeois" or claiming its supposed disregard for class distinctions have ever actually read anything by third-wave feminists, given that what they're saying is literally the direct opposite of what's actually the case.

Spearheaded by individuals such as bell hooks and Cathy Cohen, third-wave feminism arose as a direct response against previous feminist movement's disregard for race, class, and sexuality.
Yes, black feminism is part of third wave feminism, but it's not the main current, it's distinctive with the features you mentioned. Black feminism is a response to the developing third wave feminists..

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Please explain precisely how that expression is "close to blaming the victim".
I already did explain why, and your response was to ask me to explain why. I don't think what I wrote was too difficult to understand.


I don't ask that at all, all I ask is that the male perspective and male concerns are at least heard, understood and taken into account. A great deal of today's feminists fail to do any of those things.
Good for them. How patronizing of you to even ask that women struggling for their liberation should take your perspective as a man into account. By doing that, you're simply providing another example of a man being a jerk, whether or not that's your intent.

Like I said before, you need to take a step back and consider why it could be interpreted that way instead of lashing out at feminists.

[pluckedflowers]

I don't ask that at all, all I ask is that the male perspective and male concerns are at least heard, understood and taken into account

Yes, well, after all, it's so hard to get a male perspective these days (http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count).

[Ostrinski]

OK, but bourgeois feminists aren't exactly hard to find in feminist circles.Indeed, socialist currents have always been unfortunately small in social movements.


I'm looking at what those trends are saying, and they're not talking about equality, or more importantly they're not acting like they want it.I'll agree that the types you're specifying are shitheads, but so are the Nation of Islam. The NoI and their ilk believe that black liberation can only be realized through separation. We as leftists of course understand that this is a bourgeois view to hold, yet the view is still held under the pretext of anti-racism. This, of course, does not make the struggle against racial hegemony bourgeois, anything but.


Revolutionary socialists denounced social democrats in no uncertain terms about 90 years ago and have been doing it since. Revolutionary socialists said "social democrats aren't socialists"...feminists who don't like radical feminist nonsense should say the same thing, but I don't see that. If I did I'd applaud it, but I don't.Well, I agree. Radfems do not have an understanding of the patriarchal social dynamic and how to crush it. I wouldn't consider them feminist.


1.) Sure, but then it ceases to be a meaningful term, does it not?The struggle against patriarchy is not a meaningless expression, but as a movement that is distinct from and independent of class politics, is meaningless insofar as a movement of this nature can't facilitate social change. Also, terms themselves are meaningless, it's the content behind them that is important.


2/3.) True, but it does stand as criticism of the most current strands of feminism. Elizabeth Cady Stanton isn't writing articles about how I'm a sexist so my arguments don't concern her. On 3, if feminists can't account for feminism than who will?Well, we can call them out on their shitheadery without having to 'account' for them.

[Ostrinski]

I'm curious as to whether any of the people bashing third-wave feminism as "bourgeois" or claiming its supposed disregard for class distinctions have ever actually read anything by third-wave feminists, given that what they're saying is literally the direct opposite of what's actually the case.

Spearheaded by individuals such as bell hooks and Cathy Cohen, third-wave feminism arose as a direct response against previous feminist movement's disregard for race, class, and sexuality.

The first-wave focused primarily on women's suffrage while the second-wave was primarily concerned with reproductive rights and sexual violence. Third-wave feminism grew largely out of the black feminism movement and its origins can be traced to the introduction of the theory of intersectionality, which focuses on how race, sex, and class intersect with one another to create a large web of social stratification and oppression.



To the OP, the most basic definition of feminism can be summed up with a statement by bell hooks:
"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation and oppression"You're right, I'm not educated on the subject, I didn't mean to pigeonhole third-wave feminists. I was just referring to the types that manic expression specified.

[manic expression]

I already did explain why, and your response was to ask me to explain why. I don't think what I wrote was too difficult to understand.
You didn't explain it at all...you insinuated that it was "not far" from victim-blaming and then left it at that.

Again, if I say it's probably a bad idea to leave a Mercedes in a relatively unsafe neighborhood with the doors unlocked...does that make me an apologist for auto theft?


Good for them. How patronizing of you to even ask that women struggling for their liberation should take your perspective as a man into account. By doing that, you're simply providing another example of a man being a jerk, whether or not that's your intent.

Like I said before, you need to take a step back and consider why it could be interpreted that way instead of lashing out at feminists.Ah yes, so patronizing of me to not engage in teary-eyed self-flagellation just because I happen to be a male. Is that really what you think men should do...forget about their concerns and their perspective? Do you honestly think that's something that will help matters?

The real problem is that many feminists can't wrap their head around the fact that equality means equality, which means understanding both sides of gender. If you're not willing to do that, then you're not out for equality, you're out for something else. Further, men aren't the enemy, and if they want to convince themselves that men are somehow their enemy then they're not worth taking seriously...since they obviously don't understand the issues at hand.

So yes, good for them, good for alienating any reasonable women and men from their ill-defined political agenda, good for willfully misunderstanding gender issues.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Again, if I say it's probably a bad idea to leave a Mercedes in a relatively unsafe neighborhood with the doors unlocked...does that make me an apologist for auto theft?
How is "don't drink and you won't get raped" not victim blaming if a woman drinks too much and a man rapes her? "Don't rape" is the message men should give other men.


Ah yes, so patronizing of me to not engage in teary-eyed self-flagellation just because I happen to be a male. Is that really what you think men should do...forget about their concerns and their perspective?
When women are talking about their experiences with discrimination, sexism, and marginalization, men who really want to be allies will listen and learn instead of acting like the focus needs to be on them. It's not about you. If you think it is, you're part of the problem.


The real problem is that many feminists can't wrap their head around the fact that equality means equality, which means understanding both sides of gender.
Thank god for men like you who are there to tell women what they need to understand! :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

How is "don't drink and you won't get raped" not victim blaming if a woman drinks too much and a man rapes her? "Don't rape" is the message men should give other men.
Except I'm not saying that, I'm saying that it's a bad idea to put yourself in an extremely vulnerable position while you're in a social situation where those crimes occur. When I talk to men who think rape isn't a terrible crime I tell them that it is one of the most terrible of crimes. However, the message of "don't rape" probably isn't going to stop rape from happening, so it's probably a good thing if women keep themselves relatively safe.


When women are talking about their experiences with discrimination, sexism, and marginalization, men who really want to be allies will listen and learn instead of acting like the focus needs to be on them. It's not about you. If you think it is, you're part of the problem.
Except I never said men need to be "the focus"...just one-half of the equation to which they are one half of. If understanding the male perspective isn't one focus, then the issue will never be fully understood. Women hold up half the sky...and so ignoring the other half is counterproductive willful ignorance.


Thank god for men like you who are there to tell women what they need to understand! :rolleyes:
Thank goddess for most women who tell us (http://www.gallup.com/poll/6715/feminism-whats-name.aspx) that modern feminism's rhetoric doesn't speak for them. Radical feminists have essentially been given a whole department to themselves on just about every college campus in the US, and yet they've still managed to spectacularly isolate themselves. If, after that, feminists think they understand all they need to understand, then they're even more lost then they appear.

[manic expression]

Yes, well, after all, it's so hard to get a male perspective these days (http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count).
We're discussing how well the male perspective is heard and understood in feminist circles, and so I fail to see how that is relevant.

[pluckedflowers]

We're discussing how well the male perspective is heard and understood in feminist circles, and so I fail to see how that is relevant.

Unless "feminist circles" are magical vacuums that shield their inhabitants from the ruling culture, which is, as indicated, overwhelmingly, unquestionably, dominated by men and their perspectives, it is entirely relevant.

[manic expression]

Unless "feminist circles" are magical vacuums that shield their inhabitants from the ruling culture, which is, as indicated, overwhelmingly, unquestionably, dominated by men and their perspectives, it is entirely relevant.
Ideologies run contrary to "ruling culture" all the time, and in addition as such feminist views have gain acceptance within various sectors of the ruling class (as evidenced by getting an entire department on each college campus) it's not at all difficult for those circles to disregard and ignore male input. Surely enough, many feminists have done exactly that, no manner of magic needed.

Moreover, you should remember that the "ruling culture" is overwhelmingly, unquestionably, dominated by the bourgeoisie...the majority of men have very little part in this and their perspective and concerns will differ accordingly.

But let me ask you, if a feminist does take into account and understand the viewpoints of men...does that feminist better understand gender as a result, or is that feminist simply succumbing to the pressure of this supposedly omnipotent "ruling culture"?

[pluckedflowers]

Ideologies run contrary to "ruling culture" all the time, and in addition as such feminist views have gain acceptance within various sectors of the ruling class (as evidenced by getting an entire department on each college campus) it's not at all difficult for those circles to disregard and ignore male input. Surely enough, many feminists have done exactly that, no manner of magic needed.

Moreover, you should remember that the "ruling culture" is overwhelmingly, unquestionably, dominated by the bourgeoisie...the majority of men have very little part in this and their perspective and concerns will differ accordingly.

But let me ask you, if a feminist does take into account and understand the viewpoints of men...does that feminist better understand gender as a result, or is that feminist simply succumbing to the pressure of this supposedly omnipotent "ruling culture"?

No one said anything about the ruling culture being omnipotent. It is simply being pointed out to you that the ruling culture is, in fact, the ruling culture and that, by virtue of being a part of a society, feminist scholars are well acquainted with the male perspectives that ruling culture offers. Given the bias against women that permeates society, as in the case of the example provided to you, it just seems myopic for you to be whining about mens' opinions being neglected.

[manic expression]

No one said anything about the ruling culture being omnipotent. It is simply being pointed out to you that the ruling culture is, in fact, the ruling culture and that, by virtue of being a part of a society, feminist scholars are well acquainted with the male perspectives that ruling culture offers. Given the bias against women that permeates society, as in the case of the example provided to you, it just seems myopic for you to be whining about mens' opinions being neglected.
First, being acquainted with "ruling culture" is not at all the same as grasping the perspectives of the vast majority of men. Second, it's more than possible to disregard that which you have heard. Third, feminism is certainly part of "ruling culture" whether feminism admits it or not.

Lastly, men aren't so reflexively ignored by non-feminists, so this criticism is specifically about feminism.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Thank goddess for most women who tell us (http://www.gallup.com/poll/6715/feminism-whats-name.aspx) that modern feminism's rhetoric doesn't speak for them.
That's about as useful as a poll taken now where workers say socialism doesn't speak for them. It shows a lack of understanding of political consciousness on your part.

We're in the third decade of backlash against feminism. The media pumps out sexist messages non-stop. To a large number of women, their understanding of feminism comes from stereotypes perpetrated by the media.

Yet we still live in a society where rape and domestic violence are very common, women are objectified, women are forced into sexual slavery, eating disorders are rampant among younger woman because society and the media promote an unhealthy body image, reproductive rights are under assault, etc., etc., etc.

Where bourgeois tendencies of feminism fail is they think women can be liberated without changing the very nature of society, or they simply want equality within capitalism. The liberation of women can only be fulfilled within the context of the broader class struggle.


Radical feminists have essentially been given a whole department to themselves on just about every college campus in the US
At least get the terminology right. Radical feminism is a specific, and quite small, tendency of feminism, and women's studies departments tend toward more mainstream tendencies.

Your use of terms like "radical feminism" and demanding feminists listen to your concerns as a man put you in the same category as all the other angry men out there, not in the category of men who want to be allies to the struggle of women.

[Fawkes]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but to the OP, the correct word in this context would be "tenets", not "tenants"

Not a big deal, just lettin you know for future use

[derg]

Wow there are some really gross misogynists itt

[manic expression]

That's about as useful as a poll taken now where workers say socialism doesn't speak for them. It shows a lack of understanding of political consciousness on your part.
Not so. Socialism is inherently anti-bourgeois while feminism is not, therefore there is a vastly differently relationship to the ruling class. Talk about lack of political consciousness....


We're in the third decade of backlash against feminism. The media pumps out sexist messages non-stop. To a large number of women, their understanding of feminism comes from stereotypes perpetrated by the media.That should, in fact, increase feminism's appeal among women. If there is sexism all day and all night, why aren't women flocking to the banners of feminism in order to fight it? Why are fewer and fewer of them calling themselves feminists?

The environmental movement has to deal with similar opposition in the media and yet they aren't alienating the general populace as feminism has since the 80's.


Yet we still live in a society where rape and domestic violence are very common, women are objectified, women are forced into sexual slavery, eating disorders are rampant among younger woman because society and the media promote an unhealthy body image, reproductive rights are under assault, etc., etc., etc.

Where bourgeois tendencies of feminism fail is they think women can be liberated without changing the very nature of society, or they simply want equality within capitalism. The liberation of women can only be fulfilled within the context of the broader class struggle.The trouble is that I judge feminism by what it is, not by what it could or should be.

On a tangent, I think it's quite revealing how feminists never seem to care much about how men are objectified, but that's another discussion I suppose.


At least get the terminology right. Radical feminism is a specific, and quite small, tendency of feminism, and women's studies departments tend toward more mainstream tendencies.Radical feminism is not so radical as all that. It's quite a widespread tendency within feminism and it can be found readily enough in just about any Women's Studies department, leave alone feminist political groupings. Perhaps it's different outside of the US, I cannot say, I can only speak on what I've seen, but rest assured that mine is no ignorant charge.


Your use of terms like "radical feminism" and demanding feminists listen to your concerns as a man put you in the same category as all the other angry men out there, not in the category of men who want to be allies to the struggle of women.Yes, that's the way, throw all men who disagree with you in one, large category that you can shower with the totality of your disdain. Yes, that is undoubtedly the path to equity and understanding. :lol:

Your refusal to even consider the idea that men should be heard and understood by feminists just goes to show how many feminists simply don't care about equality.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but to the OP, the correct word in this context would be "tenets", not "tenants"

Not a big deal, just lettin you know for future use

KK thanks fawkes :castro:

(castro appeared to have a smiley face)

[Quail]

Manic Expression - You come into every thread about feminism, and show exactly the kind of attitude that can be problematic. As someone who for the most part benefits from patriarchy, it's probably harder for you to see the issues that women face because you're not the one that has to face them. You're not the only poster that does this. I see people making similar comments on threads about racism or homophobia too.

This is why women need to organise independently, because we know how we're oppressed and what problems we have. In majority male-dominated organisations, sexism can often go unnoticed, or it might be pushed aside in favour of other issues. I think the Mujeres Libres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujeres_Libres) are a good example of why women need to organise to liberate themselves as women as well as to liberate themselves as members of the working class.

As for the male perspective, I do think it's important to work with men and to understand that men are negatively affected by patriarchy as well. However, since patriarchy mostly affects women and people who don't conform to the social norm for their gender, it's those people whose voices need to be heard. The straight male voice is already heard most of the time.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That should, in fact, increase feminism's appeal among women. If there is sexism all day and all night, why aren't women flocking to the banners of feminism in order to fight it?
If there are all the problems of capitalism all day and all night, why aren't workers flocking to the banners of socialism in order to fight it? Because systems of oppression create a false consciousness.

[manic expression]

If there are all the problems of capitalism all day and all night, why aren't workers flocking to the banners of socialism in order to fight it? Because systems of oppression create a false consciousness.
That's an easy one to answer: it's because socialism holds in its basic assumption the destruction of capitalist society. Can you say the same thing about feminism? No, you can't, and so this is not a question of false consciousness as much as it is one of false comparisons. As I noted previously, feminism has gained acceptance and even allies among the ruling class, that much is undeniable, and that is why all these attempted excuses for feminism fall flat on their face.

Quail, you make some salient points, please allow me some time to respond to them adequately.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's an easy one to answer: it's because socialism holds in its basic assumption the destruction of capitalist society. Can you say the same thing about feminism? No, you can't, and so this is not a question of false consciousness as much as it is one of false comparisons. As I noted previously, feminism has gained acceptance and even allies among the ruling class, that much is undeniable, and that is why all these attempted excuses for feminism fall flat on their face..
So you deny that systems of oppression create a false consciousness? Or only when that system of oppression is sexism? You seem to have some very deep seated issues with women and women's liberation. You simply don't think we can liberate ourselves without men getting to impose their opinions on us.

And how is "it's because socialism holds in its basic assumption the destruction of capitalist society" an answer to my question of "why aren't workers flocking to the banners of socialism in order to fight it?"

[blake 3:17]

Not so. Socialism is inherently anti-bourgeois while feminism is not, therefore there is a vastly differently relationship to the ruling class. Talk about lack of political consciousness....

Get off it.

Anti-feminist ideology and practice is just as powerful as anti-socialist ideology and practice.


As I noted previously, feminism has gained acceptance and even allies among the ruling class, that much is undeniable, and that is why all these attempted excuses for feminism fall flat on their face.

In some cases bourgeois women have played important roles for expanding democracy. Are you saying that the dominant class doesn't play tokenistic games with representatives of the workers movement? Union leaders willing to play nice have been a huge part of centrist politics, most especially in the US, but globally as well.

Does that mean we should be anti-union on this basis? Or hostile to pro-worker parties, movements or individuals on this basis?

[#FF0000]

'gubgubgugbgbgubgub put a minus in every box a rich person puts a plus' - manic expression

i know a whole lot of rich anti-racists too.

[pluckedflowers]

'gubgubgugbgbgubgub put a minus in every box a rich person puts a plus' - manic expression

i know a whole lot of rich anti-racists too.

Seriously. Thank goodness Marx didn't apply such a metric to socialism.

[manic expression]

So you deny that systems of oppression create a false consciousness? Or only when that system of oppression is sexism? You seem to have some very deep seated issues with women and women's liberation. You simply don't think we can liberate ourselves without men getting to impose their opinions on us.
I deny the frivolous and unproven notion that class relations and gender relations are carbon copies of one another, and that any conclusion made through materialist analysis of the former can be blindly applied to the latter. I deny the idea that that is useful, I deny the claim that that is progressive.

My words here have nothing to do with "men getting to impose their opinions on women"...it simply has to do with feminists (not) listening to men. I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I write instead of relying on reflexive reactions to things you don't agree with.


And how is "it's because socialism holds in its basic assumption the destruction of capitalist society" an answer to my question of "why aren't workers flocking to the banners of socialism in order to fight it?"I suspected that I would be called upon to walk this line of logic for your benefit, but no matter: socialism is inherently opposed to the existence of capitalist society, and so the ruling class shows no mercy in slandering it and engaging in propaganda to undercut it as an ideology and as a movement. As just one relatively recent example, the Black Panthers were infiltrated, sabotaged and murdered because they were a revolutionary socialist organization. Feminism, on the other hand, has faced no such uniform opposition from the bourgeoisie as a class, and rather has found cooperation and accommodation in bourgeois circles (being given a department in practically every college campus in the US, for example). Therefore, the comparison is invalid because the conditions are not only different but in some cases diametrically opposed. You might as well compare feminism to John Brown, it would make just as little sense.


Get off it.

Anti-feminist ideology and practice is just as powerful as anti-socialist ideology and practice.
That is demonstrably untrue. "Anti-feminist ideology", at least the type I believe you're referring to, comes almost exclusively from the right-wing of bourgeois politics. Liberal capitalists are very regularly pro-feminist, and even the elected officials of the capitalist state express support for feminism. Tell me, when was the last time a self-described socialist became President of the United States (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/01/14/is-this-what-a-feminist-looks-like/)?


In some cases bourgeois women have played important roles for expanding democracy. Are you saying that the dominant class doesn't play tokenistic games with representatives of the workers movement? Union leaders willing to play nice have been a huge part of centrist politics, most especially in the US, but globally as well.

Does that mean we should be anti-union on this basis? Or hostile to pro-worker parties, movements or individuals on this basis?If you're saying that feminism is to women's rights as union leadership is to working-class interests, then I wouldn't disagree, and would point out that if we go by that, the former often acts as an obstacle to the latter in both cases.

[manic expression]

Manic Expression - You come into every thread about feminism, and show exactly the kind of attitude that can be problematic. As someone who for the most part benefits from patriarchy, it's probably harder for you to see the issues that women face because you're not the one that has to face them. You're not the only poster that does this. I see people making similar comments on threads about racism or homophobia too.

This is why women need to organise independently, because we know how we're oppressed and what problems we have. In majority male-dominated organisations, sexism can often go unnoticed, or it might be pushed aside in favour of other issues. I think the Mujeres Libres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujeres_Libres) are a good example of why women need to organise to liberate themselves as women as well as to liberate themselves as members of the working class.

As for the male perspective, I do think it's important to work with men and to understand that men are negatively affected by patriarchy as well. However, since patriarchy mostly affects women and people who don't conform to the social norm for their gender, it's those people whose voices need to be heard. The straight male voice is already heard most of the time.
A few points. First, I don't think I've demonstrated a lack of ability to see sexism on this thread or on others. Granted, you didn't say that I did, but I just want to establish that.

I am highly skeptical of the idea that women can "liberate themselves" as if they existed in a vacuum. Gender oppression cannot be undone by one gender alone, it was always going to demand a partnership of the two halves of the sky. Women organizing as women is fine, and I might even prefer that to the borderline-duplicitous conception that feminism speaks for both women and men (since it's entirely false). However, it bears repeating that men need to be involved, and trying to tell men that their voice isn't as important or that they don't need to be heard isn't a good way to involve them.

Finally, the "straight male voice" is only heard so long as it promotes the interests of capitalists first and foremost. It's very harmful for leftists to pretend as though the majority of men are running society, because in reality the ruling class is made up by a pointed minority of men (including homosexuals) and to a lesser extent women.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Women organizing as women is fine
I'm glad you approve. :rolleyes:

You complain feminists don't listen to you, but your attitude here is why they don't listen to you.

[blake 3:17]

I suspected that I would be called upon to walk this line of logic for your benefit, but no matter: socialism is inherently opposed to the existence of capitalist society, and so the ruling class shows no mercy in slandering it and engaging in propaganda to undercut it as an ideology and as a movement. As just one relatively recent example, the Black Panthers were infiltrated, sabotaged and murdered because they were a revolutionary socialist organization. Feminism, on the other hand, has faced no such uniform opposition from the bourgeoisie as a class, and rather has found cooperation and accommodation in bourgeois circles (being given a department in practically every college campus in the US, for example). Therefore, the comparison is invalid because the conditions are not only different but in some cases diametrically opposed. You might as well compare feminism to John Brown, it would make just as little sense.

COINTELPRO did infiltrate and operate against feminist organizations, specifically those with some relationship with the Socialist Workers Party (ie the American one affiliated with the Fourth International).

In Canada there`s been a bunch of documents released in the last few years on state espionage against feminist and queer organizing, long before the formation of the New Left.

http://kathleen-airdrie.suite101.com/womens-activities-under-rcmp-surveillance-1940s-to-1970s-a329319


Feminists Including Rita MacNeil Monitored by Canadian Police

Jan 9, 2011Kathleen Airdrie

Singer-Songwriter Rita MacNeil - Liberal Express
The RCMP misunderstood feminists, mistrusted them, infiltrated their meetings and rallies, and opened a file, "Women's Liberation Groups - Canada" in 1969.
Feminists in Canada, along with all other grassroots/leftist groups, which may or may not have had communist members, were under police surveillance organized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).



http://kathleen-airdrie.suite101.com/feminists-including-rita-macneil-monitored-by-canadian-police-a330154

[manic expression]

I'm glad you approve. :rolleyes:
Oh, I get it, you mock any male who offers a point of view on feminism, as if feminism was above the ignorance of dirty, stupid men. :rolleyes: Every time you respond to my posts it just further proves my points.


You complain feminists don't listen to you, but your attitude here is why they don't listen to you.
Does that include your inability to comprehend my arguments?


COINTELPRO did infiltrate and operate against feminist organizations, specifically those with some relationship with the Socialist Workers Party (ie the American one affiliated with the Fourth International).

In Canada there`s been a bunch of documents released in the last few years on state espionage against feminist and queer organizing, long before the formation of the New Left.
Right, they infiltrated feminists so long as they had some connection to socialists...which kind of goes to what I'm saying.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Does that include your inability to comprehend my arguments?
When you disagree with a woman, suggest she's stupid. You're a real charmer.

[human strike]

I would define feminism as the movement to abolish patriarchy (and with it gender). However, as bell hooks rightly points out, anti-patriarchy is useless on its own without the opposing of all forms of domination. Genuine feminists are not just anti-patriarchy, but anti-white supremacy, anti-capitalism, anti-state/hierarchy and so on.

[manic expression]

When you disagree with a woman, suggest she's stupid. You're a real charmer.
If someone seems entirely unable to comprehend my points I'm honest and forthright enough to say so, regardless if they're male or female. Anyone who's been on this forum for over a year will tell you that I've said the same thing to males on many occasions. Care to try to distract from the issue once again?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If someone seems entirely unable to comprehend my points I'm honest and forthright enough to say so, regardless if they're male or female. Anyone who's been on this forum for over a year will tell you that I've said the same thing to males on many occasions. Care to try to distract from the issue once again?
I understand just fine. You're a man with deep seated issues where women and women's liberation are concerned. Just about everything you've said could have been said by the stereotypical angry straight white conservative man. If you want to be an ally to women, quit making demands on women to "listen to you."

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

I would define feminism as the movement to abolish patriarchy (and with it gender).It's just semantics, but since feminism contains "fem," woman, in it, I'd say the struggle to make people stop using gender as a way to categorize people and assign them roles is a step beyond it. Said struggle has, unfortunately, only been taken up by a few post modernists and a few feminists like judith butler (who I really like and don't find convulted, though I haven't read that much of her stuff, just the ideas summarized. Also joke hermes is awesome).

[Quail]

I am highly skeptical of the idea that women can "liberate themselves" as if they existed in a vacuum. Gender oppression cannot be undone by one gender alone, it was always going to demand a partnership of the two halves of the sky. Women organizing as women is fine, and I might even prefer that to the borderline-duplicitous conception that feminism speaks for both women and men (since it's entirely false). However, it bears repeating that men need to be involved, and trying to tell men that their voice isn't as important or that they don't need to be heard isn't a good way to involve them.

There is a certain amount of liberation that can only come about through the efforts of women themselves. Women have to believe that they are equally capable as their male counterparts. They have to reject their subordinate role as mother and homemaker and demand provisions such as affordable childcare so that they have the opportunity to be more than just a mother and homemaker regardless of whether or not they have the support of men. It should be possible for a woman with children to support herself independently, without the need to be dependent on a man or the state. As a disadvantaged group, women need to be able to rely on themselves, not on concessions from men. (This really applies to any group of people who are disadvantaged in society, not just women.) In order for the specific needs of women to be addressed and taken into account, it's important that women are the ones that are in control of the movement.

That's not to say that men shouldn't be involved as well. Men have their own role in society to challenge and reject. I think it's important for children to see men as well as women challenging traditional gender roles. Men can support women in their struggle, because many things that negatively affect women also negatively affect men. Childcare, for example. Women being expected to shoulder most of the burden of childcare means that men might miss out on watching their child grow. I'm sure most fathers and children would like it if they took a more active role in childcare.

There are, however, some issues affecting women that men shouldn't have a say in. Access to abortion and contraception, for example, are extremely important, and as someone who will never have to worry about getting pregnant, it might be difficult to fully understand what it would be like if these things weren't freely available.

[manic expression]

I understand just fine. You're a man with deep seated issues where women and women's liberation are concerned. Just about everything you've said could have been said by the stereotypical angry straight white conservative man. If you want to be an ally to women, quit making demands on women to "listen to you."
Hmm, instead of substantively responding to points you throw out personal insults based on gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. What a sad, though very accurate, image of feminism you present.

[human strike]

It's just semantics, but since feminism contains "fem," woman, in it, I'd say the struggle to make people stop using gender as a way to categorize people and assign them roles is a step beyond it. Said struggle has, unfortunately, only been taken up by a few post modernists and a few feminists like judith butler (who I really like and don't find convulted, though I haven't read that much of her stuff, just the ideas summarized. Also joke hermes is awesome).

I agree that it is just semantics, but I've always had a problem with the word itself. Indeed I had a long personal struggle before I felt comfortable defining myself as a feminist. I still do take some issue with the word. To be honest, the word 'communist' is probably the best one I could think of when it comes to opposing domination including patriarchy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Hmm, instead of substantively responding to points you throw out personal insults based on gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity. What a sad, though very accurate, image of feminism you present.
Check out the news. There's truth to the stereotype of the angry straight white conservative man. You haven't offered anything substantially different, and considering one of your recent points was I must be too stupid to understand you, it's amusing to see your faux outrage about personal insults.

[manic expression]

Check out the news. There's truth to the stereotype of the angry straight white conservative man. You haven't offered anything substantially different, and considering one of your recent points was I must be too stupid to understand you, it's amusing to see your faux outrage about personal insults.
Ah, so all straight white men who disagree with you are the same. How enlightened you are. :lol: Of course, it just goes to show how you are incapable of understanding my points...I'm simply stating the facts as plainly seen on this thread, if you take that as an insult that's entirely your problem.

[arilando]

When you disagree with a woman, suggest she's stupid. You're a real charmer.
Is't that kinda sexist to say? Your just furthering the stereotype that feminists want women to have all the privileges they currently have (They do have some privileges that men dont, this is undeniable), while becoming equal with men in all other regards, thus making women more privileged than men.

[gorillafuck]

out of curiosity, how do people justify supporting identity politics based on sex but not identity politics based on national oppression?

[PhantomRei]

Here is an excellent quote that explains what feminism is, IMO:



For all kinds of reasons, the concept of “feminism” has been stretched beyond all useful meaning by people with counter-agendas, as well as know-nothings. It’s tempting to abandon the word now that it has lost so much of its power, but rather than giving into that despair, it’s time for those of us who really care about the concepts of feminism, misogyny, and the patriarchy to dig deep for our righteous indignation and save the concepts many people hope women will abandon.
It’s way past time to shift the frame for “feminism” back to something with real meaning and with that shift, stand firm about what “radical feminism” means as well.
Seeing the grotesque harm of rape and sexual abuse and demanding justice for women who are raped and sexually abused doesn’t make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of the threats, fear, and reality of rape and sexual abuse is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.
Believing that women who are prostituted by men are human and therefore deserve human rights does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of being prostituted, bought and sold, trafficked, and enslaved is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.
Noticing and calling attention to the fact that some men treat some women badly does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Living free of every type of abuse is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.
Understanding that the continuum from sex discrimination all the way through sexual harassment harms women’s access to economic equality does not make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for bring considered a decent human being. Economic fairness and justice are human rights and all humans should have them and support those rights.
Noticing instances of sexism, even calling them out, doesn’t make you a feminist. That’s a mere baseline for being considered a decent human being. Being free of being singled out for maltreatment, debasement, or dismissal because of a recognizable trait is a human right and all humans should have that right and support that right.
The frame of “human rights” should be very clear and easy to understand. But understanding these simple principles does not make you a feminist.
Feminism is the word that was coined to advance the idea that females are inherently at risk because of a specific system, the patriarchy, they live within. And it is the movement, based on that idea, that seeks to dismantle that system.
A feminist understands that pornography is a tool of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, used to depict women as the sex class and is therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.
A feminist understands that prostitution is a tool of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, used to position women as the sex class and therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.
A feminist understands that the right to bodily autonomy is central to women’s liberation and further understands that all efforts by men and patriarchal institutions to control women’s reproduction is systemized oppression of women as the sex class.
A feminist understands that gender is a social construct used by men and the patriarchy to keep females locked into the sex class and that any reinforcement of gender serves only to solidify women’s position in that class.
A feminist understands that heteronormativity and mandatory PIV sex are tools of the patriarchy, created, owned, and controlled by men, and are used to position women as the sex class and therefore systemized dehumanizing of women.
Recognizing and understanding the concept of a systemized and institutionalized misogyny (i.e., the patriarchy) is what makes one a true feminist. Further, a feminist understands that prostitution, sex trafficking, pornography, sexual abuse and violence, rape, sexual harassment, gender-essentialism, heteronormativity, mandatory PIV sex, and control of reproduction are specialized subsystems of the patriarchy that serve as its functioning units to control women’s lives.
Every feminist also understands that all human institutions (religious, educational, military, medical, industrial, science, cultural, entertainment, technological, legal, corporate, social, governmental, financial) have significant aspects of male dominance that, when combined in society overall, not only enable the patriarchy, but make it impervious to permanent reform.
Radical feminists understand that it will only by completely dismantling all of that, and rebuilding, that women will be completely free to be simply human.
Radical feminists also understand that each and every man has a fundamental stake in the patriarchy’s existence; that men as a class create and maintain, and men as individuals rely on and benefit from, the patriarchy’s subsystems and institutions. There is no way in hell that men could contribute to that complete overhaul — given that it’s the patriarchy that protects, defends, enables, and feeds men every day of their lives from their moment of birth to their moment of death (and ridiculously, beyond death and previous to life). There is no way that men are going to knock the very foundation of their status out from under their own feet and efforts to include them in the feminist movement is a waste of women’s precious time and energy.
Recognizing all of this, radical feminists do not get confused between what the overhaul looks like and what it looks like for women to survive in the meantime. Finding ways of mitigating the damages of the patriarchy’s subsystems and institutions is what we all must do just as a fact of living under the patriarchy. But we must also be the ones who keep a very clear vision beyond our current conditions to what it could be like if the patriarchy were completely destroyed.
Language — our language — is one of our most precious and powerful tools in this fight. In these times of backlash against feminism, many people are using our tools, including our most precious words, in ways that destroy the core concepts or make them meaningless and thus, useless.
Women must fight to keep our tools our own. Our tools help us maintain our vision and help guide us in the hard work toward our own liberation. We must be determined to not allow others to misuse them, or worse, use them against our movement for women’s liberation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Ah, so all straight white men who disagree with you are the same. How enlightened you are. :lol:
I said "There's truth to the stereotype of the angry straight white conservative man." You're the one attempting to draw some universal statement from that, because it suits your personal agenda to paint feminism, and by extension any woman who might agree with it on some level, as anti-male.


Of course, it just goes to show how you are incapable of understanding my points...I'm simply stating the facts as plainly seen on this thread, if you take that as an insult that's entirely your problem.
The only point you've made is that feminism sucks because it doesn't take men's feelings and opinions into account. I understand that just fine. You're not stating facts, you're stating opinions.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is't that kinda sexist to say? Your just furthering the stereotype that feminists want women to have all the privileges they currently have (They do have some privileges that men dont, this is undeniable), while becoming equal with men in all other regards, thus making women more privileged than men.
What privileges do women have that men don't?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Here is an excellent quote that explains what feminism is, IMO:
It explains one tendency of feminism, radical feminism. Now there are certainly ideas in there that other feminists may agree with, but it's not a universal definition of feminism.

[PhantomRei]

"it's not a universal definition of feminism"

There is none, really. Case in point, Sarah Palin, feminist

[manic expression]

I said "There's truth to the stereotype of the angry straight white conservative man." You're the one attempting to draw some universal statement from that, because it suits your personal agenda to paint feminism, and by extension any woman who might agree with it on some level, as anti-male.
You're saying that all I am is the stereotypical angry straight white conservative man. You are saying, in effect, that any straight white man who disagrees with you can be put in that category. But most importantly, you've avoided all the points I've brought up, most likely because you have no response.


The only point you've made is that feminism sucks because it doesn't take men's feelings and opinions into account. I understand that just fine. You're not stating facts, you're stating opinions.
No, that's not the only point I made, primarily because I never made any such argument. What I did say, and what you ignored, is that many feminists refuse to take into account men's perspectives and concerns, which is unbecoming of anyone who thinks they stand for equity. This, you have so graciously demonstrated by showing a complete and utter incapacity or else unwillingness to comprehend this very basic idea.

So thank you, thank you for showing us how bankrupt feminism is today.

[Quail]

Is't that kinda sexist to say? Your just furthering the stereotype that feminists want women to have all the privileges they currently have (They do have some privileges that men dont, this is undeniable), while becoming equal with men in all other regards, thus making women more privileged than men.
This doesn't really make any sense. Firstly, which specific privileges over men do women currently have? Secondly, fighting for equality doesn't work like that. As I said above, sexism that is harmful to women often has a flipside which is harmful to men, so getting rid of that sexism is good for everyone.

[arilando]

What privileges do women have that men don't?
Not having to enlist in many countries, getting less prison time for the same crimes and having a higher change of getting custody of the children. Those are just the one i can think of right now. That i even have to tell you this is incredible.

[arilando]

Here is an excellent quote that explains what feminism is, IMO:
lol:rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

This doesn't really make any sense. Firstly, which specific privileges over men do women currently have?you're white and you live in britain, btw. it seems that you're 2 out of 3 for the "privledge" ideologues.

it would be that women are almost never convicted of violent crime, men being raped is generally considered a humorous topic, men who face spousal abuse are seen as weak and effeminate, women who are gay are still able to be seen as effeminate but it is nearly impossible for gay men to be seen as masculine, weak boys and men are ostracized for not living up to expectations, and then the people who are effected in all these negative ways have to deal with people who think that this is privilege :closedeyes:

[gorillafuck]

but I don't agree with your posts here btw, manic expression.

[PhantomRei]

Lol manarchists.

"This doesn't really make any sense. Firstly, which specific privileges over men do women currently have?"

Presumably, the privilege to stay in the kitchen, the privilege be treated as a sex object, and the privilege to be emasculated.

[Quail]

you're white and you live in britain, btw. it seems that you're 2 out of 3 for the "privledge" ideologues.
This isn't a battle of who's the most oppressed, but as a woman I experience sexism first hand so I should be qualified to talk about the specific problems I as a woman face.

You only responded to half of my post, and missed out the bit where I said:

As I said above, sexism that is harmful to women often has a flipside which is harmful to men, so getting rid of that sexism is good for everyone.
So I never said that patriarchy doesn't affect men badly, but I wouldn't say that women are "privileged" over men because there are some situations where, in a power structure that in most cases causes them to lose out, their stereotypical role works to their advantage.

it would be that women are almost never convicted of violent crime,
Men are definitely disadvantaged by gender stereotyping, both in that men are seen as more capable of committing violent offenses and the way that violence is part of the "macho" culture.
This is the flipside to women being seen as weak and unable to fight.

men being raped is generally considered a humorous topic,
I think you'll find that rape in general is joked about far too often. I don't think that this is unique to men. I think that the legal definition of rape in the UK needs to be changed though, because currently according to UK law, rape can only be committed with a penis, otherwise it is "assault by penetration."
Again a flipside of women are weak, caring, nurturing, etc. so men must be strong. So if someone asserts their domination over a man by raping him, he falls short of the expectations.

men who face spousal abuse are seen as weak and effeminate,
As above, really.

women who are gay are still able to be seen as effeminate but it is nearly impossible for gay men to be seen as masculine,
Gay women are often seen as being feminine because men think it's "hot." I don't think it's accepted nearly as much as you think for gay (or indeed any) women to appear masculine.

weak boys and men are ostracized for not living up to expectations,
Everyone has expectations to live up to, whether male or female. Hence the need to get rid of gender roles.

and then the people who are effected in all these negative ways have to deal with people who think that this is privilege :closedeyes:
As I have been saying all the way through, yes, patriarchy affects men negatively too, but for the most part women are the ones who suffer, and the negative effects that men suffer are due to the same gender stereotypes that oppress women. So suporting women who are organising for better childcare provisions so that they can have the opportunity to show that they are equal, organising with women for equal rights in the workplace when a baby is born, or organising as men to get people to take male rape survivors more seriously are all valid ways of fighting against patriarchy, and more importantly are all working towards the same goal.

[Quail]

Not having to enlist in many countries, getting less prison time for the same crimes and having a higher change of getting custody of the children. Those are just the one i can think of right now. That i even have to tell you this is incredible.
2 things to say on this:

Firstly, think about "a higher chance of getting custody of the children" in context of the patriarchal society we live in. In all likelihood, the mother of the children will be the one who has spent more time with them, so will know and understand their needs better. The courts making the decision may make sexist assumptions, but in a lot of cases they are probably true. It's because of women's subordinate role as the homemaker that this happens in the first place (i.e. this is bad for both partners).

Secondly, I just wanted to post some statistics about women prisoners.


Women account for 47% of all incidents of self harm, despite representing only 5% of the prison population.

Of all the women who are sent to prison, 37% say they have attempted suicide at some time in their life. 51% have severe and enduring mental illness, 47% a major depressive disorder, 6% psychosis and 3% schizophrenia.

83% of women in prison stated that they had long-standing illness, compared with 32% of the general female population. 73% were on medication on arrival at prison – mainly benzodiazepines (42%), methadone (36%), antidepressants (14%), and sleeping pills (10%).

Women prisoners are subject to higher rates of disciplinary proceedings than men. According to the Ministry of Justice, “women may be less able (due for example to mental health issues) to conform to prison rules.
From Women in Prison (http://www.womeninprison.org.uk/statistics.php).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Not having to enlist in many countries, getting less prison time for the same crimes and having a higher change of getting custody of the children. Those are just the one i can think of right now. That i even have to tell you this is incredible.
So 1% of the time women might be treated better than men (but still for quite sexist reasons), and that makes up for the other 99% where women aren't?

[gorillafuck]

This isn't a battle of who's the most oppressed, but as a woman I experience sexism first hand so I should be qualified to talk about the specific problems I as a woman face.I've disputed none of your experiences. but even then not all women have the same opinion so I don't have to tail your opinion in everything about womens issues because then I might be contradicting what another woman says.


So I never said that patriarchy doesn't affect men badly, but I wouldn't say that women are "privileged" over men because there are some situations where, in a power structure that in most cases causes them to lose out, their stereotypical role works to their advantage.well you asked for "specific privledges". that implies that there are specific little privledges in patriarchy, which obviously would go both ways if there are specific privledges. then you completely changed that and said that privledge is actually an overarching concept and there can't be specific privledge. which is it?


Men are definitely disadvantaged by gender stereotyping, both in that men are seen as more capable of committing violent offenses and the way that violence is part of the "macho" culture.
This is the flipside to women being seen as weak and unable to fight.yes. why are you explaining this?


I think you'll find that rape in general is joked about far too often. I don't think that this is unique to men. I think that the legal definition of rape in the UK needs to be changed though, because currently according to UK law, rape can only be committed with a penis, otherwise it is "assault by penetration."
Again a flipside of women are weak, caring, nurturing, etc. so men must be strong. So if someone asserts their domination over a man by raping him, he falls short of the expectations.I know flipsides etc. that was the whole point that I am making.

and in the US at least, and I would imagine Britain, rape of men is considered much funnier. when was the last time you heard a joke about women being raped in prison?


Gay women are often seen as being feminine because men think it's "hot." I don't think it's accepted nearly as much as you think for gay (or indeed any) women to appear masculine.1. no, it's seen as feminine because being with a woman can still be seen as feminine for women because of societies perceptions. not because it's hot.

2. I never said anything about the way people look.


Everyone has expectations to live up to, whether male or female. Hence the need to get rid of gender roles.yeah. why is this being explained to me?


So suporting women who are organising for better childcare provisions so that they can have the opportunity to show that they are equal, organising with women for equal rights in the workplace when a baby is born, or organising as men to get people to take male rape survivors more seriously are all valid ways of fighting against patriarchy, and more importantly are all working towards the same goal.do you just assume that identical in opinion to manic expression because I disputed you on something?

[Quail]

I'm actually confused as to what exactly you're disputing. I don't know if it's just because I'm tired and I've misread something, but I'm a bit lost.

you're not the only woman I've ever interacted with and not all women have the same opinion so I don't have to take everything you say as true. not that I in any way disputed any of your experiences, though.
I never said you did. I wasn't really sure what your point was so I was just explaining why I felt qualified to talk about sexism.


well you asked for "specific privledges". that implies that there are specific little privledges in patriarchy, which obviously would go both ways if there are specific privledges. then you completely changed that and said that privledge is actually an overarching concept and there can't be specific privledge. which is it?
I was trying to get the person who posted the comment I quoted to give some examples of what they considered to be privileges that women have over men.

The purpose of my post was to show that any examples of "privileges" women have over men are due to sexism towards women, to show that fighting sexism towards women also fights "reverse sexism" (for want of a better word).

[AmericanCommie421]

Only one: Men and Women are fully equal, both legally and socially, and deserve no discrimination based on their gender and the same rights and opportunities.

[gorillafuck]

you asked for privledges of women over men. I provided some. thats how we started talking. is this not what seemed to happen to you?

[Quail]

you asked for privledges of women over men. I provided some. thats how we started talking. is this not what seemed to happen to you?
Yes and then I relied with this in mind:


The purpose of my post was to show that any examples of "privileges" women have over men are due to sexism towards women, to show that fighting sexism towards women also fights "reverse sexism" (for want of a better word).
I still don't really know what you meant by
well you asked for "specific privledges". that implies that there are specific little privledges in patriarchy, which obviously would go both ways if there are specific privledges. then you completely changed that and said that privledge is actually an overarching concept and there can't be specific privledge. which is it?
The purpose of asking for specific examples was so that I could provide an explanation of how the "privileges" women get from patriarchy are linked to their oppression.

[manic expression]

@zeekloid...understood, no worries.


There are, however, some issues affecting women that men shouldn't have a say in. Access to abortion and contraception, for example, are extremely important, and as someone who will never have to worry about getting pregnant, it might be difficult to fully understand what it would be like if these things weren't freely available.
On the contrary, unintended pregnancy is undeniably something men worry about...a lot...and often. The consequences are not uniform and women are the ones who stand to lose far more...but men face very serious consequences if contraception and abortion were not freely available, and so I think it is just as much an issue for men as it is for women.


The purpose of asking for specific examples was so that I could provide an explanation of how the "privileges" women get from patriarchy are linked to their oppression.Apologies for jumping into this conversation, but as we all oppose capitalism it should be universally granted that the privileges men get from patriarchy are similarly linked to their oppression. The same can be said for both the privileges of men and women in capitalist society.


Lol manarchists.

"This doesn't really make any sense. Firstly, which specific privileges over men do women currently have?"

Presumably, the privilege to stay in the kitchen, the privilege be treated as a sex object, and the privilege to be emasculated.
Men are treated as sex objects and emasculated all the time. Of course, the "privilege" of working a sh*tty job for low pay in order to try to support a family definitely makes up for it. :rolleyes:


So 1% of the time women might be treated better than men (but still for quite sexist reasons), and that makes up for the other 99% where women aren't?
Receiving lighter sentences for the same crimes is not "1% of the time". How quickly you disregard inequality as soon as it's inequality in favor of women.

[PhantomRei]

"Men are treated as sex objects and emasculated all the time."

But being an emasculated sex object is not considered an essential part of being a man. No that's women. Look at porn, for example. Surely men are being treated as sex objects? Well, no not really. They are the actors, the penetrators, the dominators, the "man".

"Of course, the "privilege" of working a sh*tty job for low pay in order to try to support a family definitely makes up for it."

The reality is women are expected to be the homemakers and have a job. And men still have the gall to complain about it. But let's say we lived in the 1950s. Is the mother who stays home and does all the housework privileged? No. To be considered a fragile emotional idiot whose only purpose is to look pretty, do all the housework, and pop out babies is NOT a privilege. It's to be an exploitable object.

[manic expression]

But being an emasculated sex object is not considered an essential part of being a man. No that's women. Look at porn, for example. Surely men are being treated as sex objects? Well, no not really. They are the actors, the penetrators, the dominators, the "man".
No more obfuscation, time to face facts. Men are used as sex objects in all sorts of media: in commercials, movies, TV, etc. You, apparently, raise no criticism of this, which suggests to us that you have little quarrel with the objectification of bodies so long as they happen to be male bodies.


The reality is women are expected to be the homemakers and have a job. And men still have the gall to complain about it. But let's say we lived in the 1950s. Is the mother who stays home and does all the housework privileged? No. To be considered a fragile emotional idiot whose only purpose is to look pretty, do all the housework, and pop out babies is NOT a privilege. It's to be an exploitable object.
The point was that working a sh*tty job for low pay isn't very much of a "privilege" to speak of. Do you disagree?

[PhantomRei]

"No more obfuscation, time to face facts. Men are used as sex objects in all sorts of media: in commercials, movies, TV, etc. You, apparently, raise no criticism of this, which suggests to us that you have little quarrel with the objectification of bodies so long as they happen to be male bodies."

No, but I'm saying there's a stark lack of symmetry. You, apparently, think men and women are are treated no different in this regard. I'd say it's time you face facts.

"The point was that working a sh*tty job for low pay isn't very much of a "privilege" to speak of. Do you disagree"

Yes. Things suck for most people. It's true that, for example, that just because you are white doesn't mean you aren't oppressed. Most likely you are. But you are still a denialist and a reactionary if you think white privilege doesn't exist.

[arilando]

Would feminists consider it sexist if a man would only want to be in a relationship with a women if she was a virgin?

[manic expression]

No, but I'm saying there's a stark lack of symmetry. You, apparently, think men and women are are treated no different in this regard. I'd say it's time you face facts.
Sure, I'd agree that men and women are objectified differently but no one can deny that men are objectified plenty in mass media and in everyday life. People aren't going to see Twilight movies because they really like the cinematography are they...and let's not forget how women compare their male partners' penis sizes and sexual performance all the time.

In addition, men are objectified not only sexually but monetarily. Mothers actually tell their young daughters to look for "PEP" (Potential Earning Power) when they begin dating. So even from a young age, boys are being taught that they're only as good as their future six-pack and/or future paycheck. A man without an income is basically a worthless bum, but a woman without an income? Not so much.


Yes. Things suck for most people. It's true that, for example, that just because you are white doesn't mean you aren't oppressed. Most likely you are. But you are still a denialist and a reactionary if you think white privilege doesn't exist.Well, I'm not going to go into race privilege right now because that's another issue. The thing is that if things suck for most people, I don't get why we're supposed to cast men as some group of happy beneficiaries of modern society. If a male worker's life kinda sucks they're hardly the privileged agent of oppression that many feminists paint them as.

[blake 3:17]

The purpose of my post was to show that any examples of "privileges" women have over men are due to sexism towards women, to show that fighting sexism towards women also fights "reverse sexism" (for want of a better word).

Glad to see "privileges" in quotes -- Many parts of life are easier for boys & men, but generally because of the subjugation of girls and women. Portions of this are material, other portions are ideological. Like Whiteness, masculinism is most often described as what it is not -- not weak, not stupid, not emotional, not irrational, not subservient. What it works out to is a bizarre sense of being Universal, while not really being or doing anything.

I was thinking that some of the male outrage in this thread is precisely due to the need for a broader gender role emancipation. I was drawn to women's culture quite young because I liked that women talk to each other -- the adult men in my life could barely carry on the most basic of conversations.

Lynn Segal's Changing Slowly is an excellent and provocative book on masculinity from a socialist feminist perspective. It covers a lot of territory, and should re-read it. I never read Susan Faludi's Stiffed, but should. A few feminist friends recommended it highly. Think it came out during my most High Theory stage...


Dave Roediger in his Wages of Whiteness talks about a false wage being paid to White workers in the US and how the White working class managed to identify with their wage masters in forming an identity that wasn't Black or slavish. There's some very interesting stuff in there about the role Native Americans played in popular mythology. The practice was to wipe them out & steal their land, but indigenous peoples offered an image of freedom, of independence, of not being slaves or wage slaves.


Would feminists consider it sexist if a man would only want to be in a relationship with a women if she was a virgin?


? Creepy but none of my business.


Men are used as sex objects in all sorts of media: in commercials, movies, TV, etc. You, apparently, raise no criticism of this, which suggests to us that you have little quarrel with the objectification of bodies so long as they happen to be male bodies.

Very little compared to women, who are treated symbolically as magic landscapes. At least dudes get the right to be depicted as having some form of agency.

One of the gripes I had about the OP's link was around objectification. We are all objects, as well as subjects. Why we have biases, attractions and repulsion about human bodies in their variance is crazy massive.


? I want too many answers to questions I don't want to ask!

[gorillafuck]

Yes and then I relied with this in mind:and I got confused because I didn't dispute that whatsoever, you just read my post and seemed to have assigned me an ideology based on it.


The purpose of asking for specific examples was so that I could provide an explanation of how the "privileges" women get from patriarchy are linked to their oppression.just because there are connections in the downsides of patriarchy for both women and men does not mean that women do not have certain perks due to patriarchy even if they are on the losing side which can be classified as "privledges" if we are going to use that kind of language. is what I've said all along. and you responded by explaining a bunch of stuff to me that I never disputed. I'm still confused.


But being an emasculated sex object is not considered an essential part of being a man. No that's women. Look at porn, for example. Surely men are being treated as sex objects? Well, no not really. They are the actors, the penetrators, the dominators, the "man".male porn actors are paid significantly less when it comes to the porn industry. it is the only industry I know of where males are exploited more than females.

[Lanky Wanker]

I apologise if I missed some important posts here, I did read over the first couple of pages, but I just wanted to get an answer for this particular question that's been on my mind.

First off, I understand that feminists (not all, however) realise that men are not treated equally to women in many ways. As some previous posts have said, men are legally and socially treated unfairly in their own ways. Obviously sexism against women is a far more obvious problem, but why do we have to focus on women? If person A only gets one piece of bread each day, and person B gets two pieces of bread every day (which is obviously not enough to live on healthily), should we focus our energy only on person A? Why can't we get rid of this masculinist/feminist stuff and just call ourselves anti-sexist? Why is there a movement just for women? Why not men and women? If I fight racism, I won't fight racism against blacks, I'll fight racism against everyone. Is it impossible for a person to focus on the rights of both sexes? Does an anti-capitalist factory worker only care about liberating people in his area of production -- shoe production, for example? Abolishing sexism against women does not abolish sexism against men.

I'm not trying to hand out any fuck-yous, I just don't understand why it's a WOMEN's movement... why can't it be a movement for HUMANS instead? I do see the positive image of feminism, but I'm unclear about this. And to the post about feminism not focusing on men just like a worker's movement doesn't focus on the bourgeoisie (if my memory is working properly)... we're talking about bringing the sexes together, not abolishing the ruling sex.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Is there a contradiction between pursuing equality and being a partisan for the oppressed group? Class struggle activists aren't expected to support both workers and capitalists, after all.

I don't think there is a crossover here, actually.

In a Capitalist society, the bourgeoisie exists and, in order to continue to do so, it needs the proletariat to exist.

In a Socialist society, or a society transforming to Socialism, the proletariat needs not itself to exist, let alone the bourgeoisie.

However, in any society, men and women need each other to continue existing. In that way I do see where Manic is coming from, though I would hesitate to generalise as much as he has. In my experience, some feminists can come across as purely partisan as opposed to pro-equality. Of course, given history, one has to be sympathetic to how this sort of partisanship would have come about; I would condemn it more as an error in theory as opposed to anything more malicious.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Having read the rest of the conversation, i'll of course be distancing myself from what Manic has said later on to his initial post.

[Althusser]

I don't particularly like radical feminism or even some of the tamer things feminists say. I don't appreciate it when they say that men, like myself, are part of some patriarchal conspiracy to suppress women. The only men that support rape are mostly rapists.

When they're told not to dress like whores or they'll get raped, they take it for "If you arouse any man you come across because of the way you dress, it is your fault when every man in a 1 mile radius comes over to gang rape you."

NO! It means, we know there are people in this world who rape, murder and steal. Don't be a fucking enabler. That argument is the equivalent of, "Don't wear a huge diamond ring on your finger, or there is a chance it might get stolen." Though the person stealing the ring is the person to blame, the fucker flaunting it has some fault, no?

[Lanky Wanker]

I don't particularly like radical feminism or even some of the tamer things feminists say. I don't appreciate it when they say that men, like myself, are part of some patriarchal conspiracy to suppress women. The only men that support rape are mostly rapists.

When they're told not to dress like whores or they'll get raped, they take it for "If you arouse any man you come across because of the way you dress, it is your fault when every man in a 1 mile radius comes over to gang rape you."

NO! It means, we know there are people in this world who rape, murder and steal. Don't be a fucking enabler. That argument is the equivalent of, "Don't wear a huge diamond ring on your finger, or there is a chance it might get stolen." Though the person stealing the ring is the person to blame, the fucker flaunting it has some fault, no?

Are you saying that women should be allowed to dress however they want without being raped and blamed for it, or that they shouldn't do it in the first place because they know the possible consequences? I'm confused.

[Quail]

I apologise if I missed some important posts here, I did read over the first couple of pages, but I just wanted to get an answer for this particular question that's been on my mind.

First off, I understand that feminists (not all, however) realise that men are not treated equally to women in many ways. As some previous posts have said, men are legally and socially treated unfairly in their own ways. Obviously sexism against women is a far more obvious problem, but why do we have to focus on women? If person A only gets one piece of bread each day, and person B gets two pieces of bread every day (which is obviously not enough to live on healthily), should we focus our energy only on person A? Why can't we get rid of this masculinist/feminist stuff and just call ourselves anti-sexist? Why is there a movement just for women? Why not men and women? If I fight racism, I won't fight racism against blacks, I'll fight racism against everyone. Is it impossible for a person to focus on the rights of both sexes? Does an anti-capitalist factory worker only care about liberating people in his area of production -- shoe production, for example? Abolishing sexism against women does not abolish sexism against men.

I'm not trying to hand out any fuck-yous, I just don't understand why it's a WOMEN's movement... why can't it be a movement for HUMANS instead? I do see the positive image of feminism, but I'm unclear about this. And to the post about feminism not focusing on men just like a worker's movement doesn't focus on the bourgeoisie (if my memory is working properly)... we're talking about bringing the sexes together, not abolishing the ruling sex.
One of the problems is that in male-dominated labour movements, the specific needs of women aren't taken into account because men might not think of them, so there can be a need for women to organise independently as well. The Mujeres Libres are a good historical example.

The feminist movement is more of a women's movement because women suffer more from patriarchy and more visibly. For example, women earning less than their male counterparts are reasonably outraged. I know lots of men who sneer at the idea of male feminists. They think that gender equality already exists because when people benefit from inequality, they don't notice it as much.

I don't see why some people seem to have such a problem with feminism. It's the same as any other movement for equality, in that an oppressed group of people might need to organise independently as that group in order to make sure their specific needs are met.

[Lanky Wanker]

One of the problems is that in male-dominated labour movements, the specific needs of women aren't taken into account because men might not think of them, so there can be a need for women to organise independently as well. The Mujeres Libres are a good historical example.

The feminist movement is more of a women's movement because women suffer more from patriarchy and more visibly. For example, women earning less than their male counterparts are reasonably outraged. I know lots of men who sneer at the idea of male feminists. They think that gender equality already exists because when people benefit from inequality, they don't notice it as much.

I don't see why some people seem to have such a problem with feminism. It's the same as any other movement for equality, in that an oppressed group of people might need to organise independently as that group in order to make sure their specific needs are met.

If that's the case then I don't see anything wrong with it in labour movements and whatnot, but the usual feminists (not just the crazy man haters) you hear about seem to either not recognise or not care about men in general. Feminism in relation to capitalism is a different story.

[ParaRevolutionary]

Id like to make you aware that no one is forced to do porn, they do it because the pay is generous. In the porn industry women make considerably more than men, who are merely considered props. Id also like to point out that any woman that does that degredation and humiliation porn is doing it because she likes it, the pay in no more than regular porn and the audience it panders to is minute.

[Lanky Wanker]

Id like to make you aware that no one is forced to do porn, they do it because the pay is generous. In the porn industry women make considerably more than men, who are merely considered props. Id also like to point out that any woman that does that degredation and humiliation porn is doing it because she likes it, the pay in no more than regular porn and the audience it panders to is minute.

I don't see the problem with porn, even if it is the "degrading" stuff; I see porn under capitalism as the problem. It reinforces this nasty idea of what women should look like (and men, with all the big dicks and whatnot) because a bunch of knobends know it'll make them rich. I think it also explains, at least partially, why women are told not to expose their breasts or dress in certain ways. People don't buy pancakes if they can get them for free.

[ParaRevolutionary]

I don't see the problem with porn, even if it is the "degrading" stuff; I see porn under capitalism as the problem. It reinforces this nasty idea of what women should look like (and men, with all the big dicks and whatnot) because a bunch of knobends know it'll make them rich. I think it also explains, at least partially, why women are told not to expose their breasts or dress in certain ways. People don't buy pancakes if they can get them for free.

I have no problem with people doing porn either, degrading or not, whatever floats your boat. I think the idea that people should look like pornstars is a dead one, the only indelable impact porn has had on image is this wave of over grooming.