Feminist Groups: Women Only?

[human strike]

Recently in conversation with someone they claimed that feminist groups must necessarily be women only spaces. My personal feeling on this is that rather than there being arbitrary rules such as this on how feminist groups should organise, it's up to each group to determine how they form themselves.

I was interested if others could share their opinions on this. Am I wrong to think that and is my opinion, as a man, even relevant?

[Quail]

I think there are good reasons why feminists and women might want "women only" spaces. For example, some people might not feel as comfortable talking when there are men in the room or the group might have formed to deal with sexism in a particular group. On the other hand I also think that it's necessary for men to be exposed to feminism and to actively work alongside women, and only ever having "women only" spaces might hinder that. I would probably advocate having some meetings "women only" and some meetings where men are allowed to come to get the best of both worlds, but that's just my opinion. I think it depends on the situation and the individual people as to whether a meeting should involve men or not.

Also, "women only" spaces can be used as a way of excluding trans women, although many feminist groups might say something like "this group is open to all self-identifying women."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

women's only spaces are important. Some UK universities do a good job of having 'liberation networks' that are, variously, women-only, disability-only. I can imagine it being a safe and comforting space.

As for feminist groups - it's totally up to the women to decide, I guess, though i'd imagine the best scenario IMO is for them to be male-inclusive, but female led. Men can't lead feminist projects effectively, I don't feel.

[human strike]

women's only spaces are important. Some UK universities do a good job of having 'liberation networks' that are, variously, women-only, disability-only. I can imagine it being a safe and comforting space.

As for feminist groups - it's totally up to the women to decide, I guess, though i'd imagine the best scenario IMO is for them to be male-inclusive, but female led. Men can't lead feminist projects effectively, I don't feel.

When you say lead could you clarify exactly what you mean by that in a practical sense? Does that mean men are included in events but aren't included in organising or planning those events?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

When you say lead could you clarify exactly what you mean by that in a practical sense? Does that mean men are included in events but aren't included in organising or planning those events?

Well, I guess there's no 'blueprint'. By lead I mean just that - in a feminist group, self-identifying females take the lead role, whatever that may be, or whatever they decide that to be.

[blake 3:17]

My main political base at university was the Women's Centre. They actually wanted to make me a member, but I was cool not being. I fully support autonomous women's organizing, and right to caucus, and have women's only spaces. But I was very happy to help out with doing basic useful stuff, and hanging out, and doing political stuff.

It was a good counter balance to the social democrats and wasn't all effed up like sect groups, of which I was a part, but had little patience for the idiocy of.

I was also relieved and happy when I found out that all these super uber anti-oppression anarcha feminists were really into South Park -- that's what got me starting watching it. It was a good posse.

Trans issues weren't as prominent at the time. The big debate was the Michigan Women's Music Festival -- yikes!!! -- nasty.

Edited to add: I know a few people at the Centre wanted me as a member, and probably a few people there weren't so keen on me. And there wasn't any real point to having a guy as part of the collective -- it would've created a really bad precedent (because there are a bunch of asshole men that try to join women's groups just to be jerks) & I was considered a friend and ally and participated in their stuff and did joint work and they co-sponsored events with groups I was in and blah blah blah...

[Skyhilist]

Exclusion on the basis of genetics has never made sense to me.

I can understand why women might not feel comfortable being in a room with men where they talked about personal issues if they'd been, say, abused by males all their lives. But to be honest, the categories of "men" and "women" are pretty arbitrary. If a group of black women has abused by exclusively white men, should it make sense for them to exclude white women from their meetings by arbitrarily making the category of her abuser "whites" instead of "men"? I would say no. Why? Because obviously not all whites are out there to abuse them. The same logic should be applied for exclusion of any arbitrarily assigned group of people, including "men". Because really, why is excluding men really any more necessary than excluding any arbitrary group that might also contain (but doesn't only contain) society's oppressors?

Anyways, long story short people shouldn't be excluded for things that they have no control over. I understand where certain women might be coming from, but honestly some need to realize that not all men want to play the role of the oppressor, and some are disgusted with the arbitrary privilege that we have, like myself. Now, if MRAs are the only men joining and to antagonize women or something like that, then I can understand why feminist groups would want to regulate who entered the group especially, although I still don't think it should be done across such arbitrary lines.

[Bea Arthur]

Men have absolutely no business giving suggestions to women about the topic of women's liberation. Stick to fixing your own hang-ups, men!!

[d3crypt]

Men have absolutely no business giving suggestions to women about the topic of women's liberation. Stick to fixing your own hang-ups, men!!

This is completely sexist. Excluding men only alienates men to feminist struggle. Isn't feminism about overcoming patriarchy, not female supremacy?

[Art Vandelay]

I think that these types of discussion, which are extremely important to have, tend to get dragged off topic, so I want to raise a separate question. Alot of these types of topics get hijacked and subsequently alot of good posters get sucked into the nonsense. Instead I'd like to push this conversation in a different direction. I had somewhat of an epiphany, maybe about a couple of months ago, where I realized that I had been completely neglecting issues surrounding patriarchy, homophobia, racism, etc. I had been too focused on class, and failed to see the dialectical nature between both class struggle and the struggles of oppressed minorities. So to truly organize our class, as 'a class for itself' which can pose a serious threat to capital, we must link up the struggles of all oppressed minorities, with the broader anti-capitalist struggle. So I guess basically I'd like to ask a question, which hopefully can have some tangible benefit in my poilitical work here in canada, and this can pretty much go out to anyone who has some insight. Look I know my place in the class struggle, and it isn't to lead or tell the leadership of oppressed minorities how to go about seeking their own liberation. Having said that, what is the best way to turn oneself into an ally for their cause?

Edit: This doesn't directly relate to the OP, but I think its relevant enough.

[Quail]

This is completely sexist. Excluding men only alienates men to feminist struggle. Isn't feminism about overcoming patriarchy, not female supremacy?

Exclusion on the basis of genetics has never made sense to me.
Let's give an explicit example where it would be appropriate for women to have a separate space for a meeting. Say there is a political organisation, and the women in it feel that they aren't having their needs taken into account. Perhaps there isn't adequate childcare, the women are finding themselves doing all the menial tasks that nobody else wants to do, their ideas aren't valued, etc. If they were to invite men to attend a meeting where they discussed such problems, then those men might get defensive or tell the women they're overreacting and generally make the meeting less productive. Also if there were people would were particularly problematic and they turned up to the meeting, the women might not be able to say what they wanted to say.

Another important point to consider is that it should be the people of a particular marginalised group who liberate themselves. So any feminist group should be led by women. Women should take all the important stuff and it's men's role to support us.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The need for women's groups is a pragmatic response to the situation women face today. In a society without patriarchy, there would be no need for "women's groups" per se.

[Art Vandelay]

The need for women's groups is a pragmatic response to the situation women face today. In a society without patriarchy, there would be no need for "women's groups" per se.

While I entirely agree with this, I guess I'm just sick of having these conversations (I'm certainly not calling you out here by any means). What I mean is, we have a handful of good posters when it comes to these issues, who as opposed to primarily discussing among each other in a productive manner, pretty much take turns combating the reactionary shit that gets spewed on this forum. I mean your post I quoted, is absolutely spot on, but its also part of the problem (I'm guilty of this too). I think, just for once, instead of posting abstract slogans, we should really discuss the nuts and bolts of how a party/political organization, could best orientate itself to various oppressed groups. I mean I certainly don't have the answers here, that's why I'm asking the question. But not only do I know any pertinent answers could help me (and hopefully others) in my real life political work, but I also think it would be a more interesting and productive discussion, then most of these types of threads end up as.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

This is completely sexist.

Not being rude, but do you even know what sexism is? If the height of inconvenience of sexism for you is that you can't be part of a club for the liberation of other people (i'm presuming you're a guy?), then that says a lot about the hardship you face.

Sexism, for women, is being cat-called every day, leered at every day, not being able to walk home in the dark without being shit-scared about that dude 20 yards behind her. Being groped in clubs, being called all sorts of 'cute' nicknames against their wishes. Being raped and used as weapons of war.

Sexism against women is real and hurts their lives so much on a daily basis, more than you or I, as men, can really appreciate, because 'sexism' against us is at most theoretical. I've personally NEVER, EVER, not once , felt that my quality of life has suffered, or that i've been discriminated against negatively, because of being a guy.


Excluding men only alienates men to feminist struggle.

Yeah, but so what? Excluding the ruling class from a revolutionary party only alienates them from working class struggle, right? Same principles apply. It isn't you or I that is going to 'give' equality to women and end patriarchy. Like every hard-won revolutionary and labour measure in history, patriarchy will be ended through women's struggle.

After all, can you actually think of a worse example of patriarchy then men 'giving' something (i.e 'equality') to women?




Isn't feminism about overcoming patriarchy, not female supremacy?

See above. Overcoming patriarchy necessitates struggle by women. It's nice if we support that, but we have to understand that we aren't the revolutionaries when it comes to feminism, women are.

[human strike]

I have some thoughts on this which I'd really appreciate if people could feedback on and help me develop.

The need for women only spaces is obvious. Oppressed groups self-determining the terms on which they form and operate is also a pretty obvious principle. The system of male domination only exists because of the threat (and often more than just the threat) of male violence. If women are going to be able to engage in feminist movement effectively then they need spaces that are free from this threat and, yes, any man is a potential threat or at least a perceived threat. The suggestion that this is sexist against men is perverse.

Women's liberation is not gained through autonomy from men though. Whilst these spaces are valuable and essential (and perhaps liberating in a limited sense), they should not be seen as the object of liberation or a goal in their own right.

So what is the goal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is a situation where women and men relate to each other in a radically different way, right? Where actually they relate in a way where they are not women or men anymore, but as singularities without dominant or submissive groups or genders.

Assuming this to be the case, what are the dangers of only creating feminist spaces where men are spectators rather than active participants in struggle? Is it possible to create situations where women and men are able to relate to each other radically differently - as something other than women and men - if feminist spaces and initiatives are always led by women? Does this not affirm gender? Sometimes we see feminist (or "profeminist") groups that are led by men and without women, but I don't really see how this resolves the problem in the reverse situation.

There are consciousness raising initiatives where men are encouraged to reflect on their own privilege and the ways in which they dominate and oppress women. Whilst these are useful, I seriously question how far these can actually lead men to stop oppressive behaviour. I think a politics that limits the role of allies from oppressor identities to reflecting on their own privilege actually privileges and fetishises oppression. The point becomes to be as oppressed as possible rather than as liberated as possible. We see this all the time, rather than using their male/white/heterosexual/bourgeois guilt and privilege to challenge systems of oppression, these people look for or appropriate oppressed status (sometimes even inventing ways in which they are oppressed). Ultimately, this kind of politics maintains a logic where the dominant identity is the subject capable of self-reflexivity and the oppressed subject as the occasion for self-reflexivity. We confess our privilege but maintain it all the same.

Feminism has to offer men something more than an opportunity to feel better about themselves for being "allies" whilst still dominating women. It needs to offer an opportunity for men to deconstruct their own masculinity and to actually stop dominating others, to effectively stop being men. (I think this would appeal to a lot of men who are inherently (to varying degrees) alienated by masculinity - within patriarchy men get treated better than most women and we undeniably benefit in all sorts of ways, but it still fuckin' sucks to be a man.) The reverse is also true for women, of course. A feminism that affirms masculinity also affirms femininity and a condition of submission. I do not accept that we can think our way into a different way of acting. We can only act our way into a different way of thinking.

The challenge, I think, is balancing the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they exclude men, with the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they allow for a radically different way of relating to people free from strict gender norms (or even gender altogether) which necessarily includes men.

I've sort of just chucked a load of thoughts that have been buzzing round my head onto here but I hope that makes sense.

[Bea Arthur]

I have some thoughts on this which I'd really appreciate if people could feedback on and help me develop.

The need for women only spaces is obvious. Oppressed groups self-determining the terms on which they form and operate is also a pretty obvious principle. The system of male domination only exists because of the threat (and often more than just the threat) of male violence. If women are going to be able to engage in feminist movement effectively then they need spaces that are free from this threat and, yes, any man is a potential threat or at least a perceived threat. The suggestion that this is sexist against men is perverse.

Women's liberation is not gained through autonomy from men though. Whilst these spaces are valuable and essential (and perhaps liberating in a limited sense), they should not be seen as the object of liberation or a goal in their own right.

So what is the goal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is a situation where women and men relate to each other in a radically different way, right? Where actually they relate in a way where they are not women or men anymore, but as singularities without dominant or submissive groups or genders.

Assuming this to be the case, what are the dangers of only creating feminist spaces where men are spectators rather than active participants in struggle? Is it possible to create situations where women and men are able to relate to each other radically differently - as something other than women and men - if feminist spaces and initiatives are always led by women? Does this not affirm gender? Sometimes we see feminist (or "profeminist") groups that are led by men and without women, but I don't really see how this resolves the problem in the reverse situation.

There are consciousness raising initiatives where men are encouraged to reflect on their own privilege and the ways in which they dominate and oppress women. Whilst these are useful, I seriously question how far these can actually lead men to stop oppressive behaviour. I think a politics that limits the role of allies from oppressor identities to reflecting on their own privilege actually privileges and fetishises oppression. The point becomes to be as oppressed as possible rather than as liberated as possible. We see this all the time, rather than using their male/white/heterosexual/bourgeois guilt and privilege to challenge systems of oppression, these people look for or appropriate oppressed status (sometimes even inventing ways in which they are oppressed). Ultimately, this kind of politics maintains a logic where the dominant identity is the subject capable of self-reflexivity and the oppressed subject as the occasion for self-reflexivity. We confess our privilege but maintain it all the same.

Feminism has to offer men something more than an opportunity to feel better about themselves for being "allies" whilst still dominating women. It needs to offer an opportunity for men to deconstruct their own masculinity and to actually stop dominating others, to effectively stop being men. (I think this would appeal to a lot of men who are inherently (to varying degrees) alienated by masculinity - within patriarchy men get treated better than most women and we undeniably benefit in all sorts of ways, but it still fuckin' sucks to be a man.) The reverse is also true for women, of course. A feminism that affirms masculinity also affirms femininity and a condition of submission. I do not accept that we can think our way into a different way of acting. We can only act our way into a different way of thinking.

The challenge, I think, is balancing the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they exclude men, with the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they allow for a radically different way of relating to people free from strict gender norms (or even gender altogether) which necessarily includes men.

I've sort of just chucked a load of thoughts that have been buzzing round my head onto here but I hope that makes sense.

Men can most certainly be activists in the feminist movement ... by sticking to your own spaces and checking your own sexist thoughts! Simple, right? Yet the men here keep screaming about wanting to be let into these women's spaces. I wonder why!!! The same way that Christopher Columbus wanted to be allowed into Native American spaces to assist them in building a liberated native culture!

[Skyhilist]

Let's give an explicit example where it would be appropriate for women to have a separate space for a meeting. Say there is a political organisation, and the women in it feel that they aren't having their needs taken into account. Perhaps there isn't adequate childcare, the women are finding themselves doing all the menial tasks that nobody else wants to do, their ideas aren't valued, etc. If they were to invite men to attend a meeting where they discussed such problems, then those men might get defensive or tell the women they're overreacting and generally make the meeting less productive. Also if there were people would were particularly problematic and they turned up to the meeting, the women might not be able to say what they wanted to say.

Another important point to consider is that it should be the people of a particular marginalised group who liberate themselves. So any feminist group should be led by women. Women should take all the important stuff and it's men's role to support us.

Uhh sounds to me that the group these women were initially in was full not of just men but of men who clearly support patriarchy. Why not just have a new group then where anyone who showed even vague support for patriarchy could be purged from the group then, rather than assuming that all men will be that way? If the men from their former group act the way that you say then they still wouldn't be allowed; it'd just be on a more logical basis.

[Skyhilist]

I still don't understand: why ban all men instead of just banning those who show support for patriarchy? It's obviously different from alienating the bourgeois during the revolution. You choose to be bourgeois but you don't choose to be male. So, seeing as this is a women's struggle, could someone who is female explain to me why makes who fully oppose patriarchy should rationally be exlcuded from groups that want to abolish it? All of the examples provided so far have only dealt with problems that would arise if males supporting patriarchy were part of such groups. Please, explain what problems would arise if the only makes that we're part of such groups expliitely opposed patriarchy?

[human strike]

Men can most certainly be activists in the feminist movement ... by sticking to your own spaces and checking your own sexist thoughts! Simple, right? Yet the men here keep screaming about wanting to be let into these women's spaces. I wonder why!!! The same way that Christopher Columbus wanted to be allowed into Native American spaces to assist them in building a liberated native culture!

It's not about being let into women's spaces, it's about creating spaces that don't belong to anyone, or rather, belong to everyone. This is in no way an argument against women only spaces - it's an argument for feminist spaces that are geared towards negating/overcoming (I'm not sure what word to use here) gender. Do we seriously expect men to unlearn sexism and masculinity simply by reflecting on their own behaviour?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I still don't understand: why ban all men instead of just banning those who show support for patriarchy?

Because, we as men cannot fully understand the varied effects and scars caused by sexism, and the underlying system of patriarchy. Much like it's more effective for drug/alcohol addicts to have their own 'anonymous' spaces, and much like it helps rape victims to not have to discuss their rape with their rapist but with like-minded people, so too you must understand that it is FAR easier - i'd say essential - that women have their own space where they can speak freely about their experiences in a patriarchy. The ultimate freedom that a women's-only space gives would be compromised by male inclusion, even sympathetic men. It doesn't mean we don't have a role to play, it just means that SOME spaces should be women-only, so that they can discuss and deliberate freely.




It's obviously different from alienating the bourgeois during the revolution. You choose to be bourgeois but you don't choose to be male.

Think about it from the other side. Nobody chooses to be a worker, just like nobody chooses to be a women living under a patriarchy.


So, seeing as this is a women's struggle, could someone who is female explain to me why makes who fully oppose patriarchy should rationally be exlcuded from groups that want to abolish it? All of the examples provided so far have only dealt with problems that would arise if males supporting patriarchy were part of such groups. Please, explain what problems would arise if the only makes that we're part of such groups expliitely opposed patriarchy?

Firstly a disclaimer - i'm not a woman. However, from what I can gather, the best example I can give is that there are issues which are incredibly sensitive amongst women that even feminist men may not understand, or can only have so much empathy for. The cat-calling thing springs to mind. It's something that is rarely taken seriously by us men - feminist or pro-patriarchy alike -, but something that many women take extremely seriously.

I want to ask you a question now: why are you so against women having their own space where they can talk freely? Disabled people have disabled spaces, events and so on. Minority ethnic groups too have their own spaces to discuss their own culture, their experiences in foreign cultures and so on. Why can't women have a safe space to discuss, to rationalise, to comfort each other and to decide what actions THEY want to take to end the discrimination THEY (not us!) face? It just smacks of an attitude of wanting to jump on the whole 'SEXISM AGAINST MEN FEMALE SUPREMACY HERP DERP' sort of bandwagon. If a guy really understands feminism, he'd just take a back seat and do whatever's in the interests of women's liberation.

[Bea Arthur]

It's not about being let into women's spaces, it's about creating spaces that don't belong to anyone, or rather, belong to everyone. This is in no way an argument against women only spaces - it's an argument for feminist spaces that are geared towards negating/overcoming (I'm not sure what word to use here) gender. Do we seriously expect men to unlearn sexism and masculinity simply by reflecting on their own behaviour?

You think overcoming sexism is just a matter of men "unlearning" and "learning" various things. Education as struggle. Very liberal! You think there are or can be in a sexist society that devalues women such things as neutral spaces open to everyone. Also very liberal!! Either the space is open to men, in which case it is open to the privileged who have a stake in defending their privilege against men and the power to defend it, or it is a safe space for women because men are not allowed. The idea of a third space neutral between men and women because it is gender-neutral, not taking a person's gender into account, will serve to reinforce the dominant gender order. It is similar to the idea of eliminating affirmative action because we have supposedly achieved a color-blind society. Doing so will just propagate the current racial order.

[Skyhilist]

Because, we as men cannot fully understand the varied effects and scars caused by sexism, and the underlying system of patriarchy. Much like it's more effective for drug/alcohol addicts to have their own 'anonymous' spaces, and much like it helps rape victims to not have to discuss their rape with their rapist but with like-minded people, so too you must understand that it is FAR easier - i'd say essential - that women have their own space where they can speak freely about their experiences in a patriarchy. The ultimate freedom that a women's-only space gives would be compromised by male inclusion, even sympathetic men. It doesn't mean we don't have a role to play, it just means that SOME spaces should be women-only, so that they can discuss and deliberate freely.

This would be all well and good if patriarchy only affected women. But the fact of the matter is that it affects everyone in society. Personally, male privilege to me is a curse -- it's something that I don't deserve -- it's something that makes me feel like I've committed some heinous crime on the basis of my genetics. Just as feminist men can never understand what women feel under patriarchy, feminist women can never really understand what feminist men feel under patriarchy. Don't you think that given that, combating an issue from more than one type of experience/position might offer a more multifaceted and therefore balanced approach to eliminate patriarchy?


Think about it from the other side. Nobody chooses to be a worker, just like nobody chooses to be a women living under a patriarchy.

Nobody chooses to be a worker. People do choose to become or remain bourgeois though. While women don't choose to be women, men don't choose to be men either, and therefore can't be seen as analogous to the bourgeois class in this way.


Firstly a disclaimer - i'm not a woman. However, from what I can gather, the best example I can give is that there are issues which are incredibly sensitive amongst women that even feminist men may not understand, or can only have so much empathy for.

How is that so different from the fact that it's harder for women to empathize with the person who sees their unjust privilege as a curse?


The cat-calling thing springs to mind. It's something that is rarely taken seriously by us men - feminist or pro-patriarchy alike -, but something that many women take extremely seriously.

Then why not just exclude men who fail to take such things seriously?


I want to ask you a question now: why are you so against women having their own space where they can talk freely? Disabled people have disabled spaces, events and so on. Minority ethnic groups too have their own spaces to discuss their own culture, their experiences in foreign cultures and so on.

I would argue that disabled people, because they are fewer in number do not have any near as significant of an impact on society as patriarchy does. Patriarchy effects everyone in a very large way, not just women. Is there an able-bodied privilege? Yes, but because there are far fewer disabled people than there are women this has much less of an overall effect on people who are not themselves disabled.

As for minorities -- I believe that issues dealing with racial privilege do have as much of an impact as patriarchy. For this reason it's important to combat them also using a multifaceted approach that takes into account both the anti-racist caucasian who sees there privilege as a curse and the African American who is on the receiving end of disadvantages based on race. I believe the saying goes, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Now, obviously the two baskets are nowhere near the same size in this instance (in that the negative impact of racism is much less on whites who feel cursed by their privilege), but that doesn't make the statement any less true.


Why can't women have a safe space to discuss, to rationalise, to comfort each other and to decide what actions THEY want to take to end the discrimination THEY (not us!) face? It just smacks of an attitude of wanting to jump on the whole 'SEXISM AGAINST MEN FEMALE SUPREMACY HERP DERP' sort of bandwagon. If a guy really understands feminism, he'd just take a back seat and do whatever's in the interests of women's liberation.

I don't recall saying this was "sexist against men". In fact I know that the people suggesting such exclusion obviously are not sexist. However, exclusion based on sex serve to validate the fallacious notion that it is sensible and not completely arbitrary to categorize people based on sex as opposed to any other factors (e.g. height, voice, etc.). Also, I feel that issues of discrimination can best be addressed by taking into consideration both the oppressed and the people who see their privilege as a curse (and don't try to say that's like wanting to include the bourgeois in the revolution because obviously the bourgeois class don't see their privilege as a curse or they wouldn't continue to be bourgeois).

[human strike]

You think overcoming sexism is just a matter of men "unlearning" and "learning" various things.

No, I don't. But I see it as part of it.


You think there are or can be in a sexist society that devalues women such things as neutral spaces open to everyone.

Again, no, I do not. But are we not trying to create exactly that?


Either the space is open to men, in which case it is open to the privileged who have a stake in defending their privilege against men and the power to defend it, or it is a safe space for women because men are not allowed. The idea of a third space neutral between men and women because it is gender-neutral, not taking a person's gender into account, will serve to reinforce the dominant gender order. It is similar to the idea of eliminating affirmative action because we have supposedly achieved a color-blind society. Doing so will just propagate the current racial order.

Where do people who are neither men nor women fit into your reasoning?

It's not pretending to be gender-blind or pretending that such a space is gender neutral or pretending that privilege doesn't still exist, it's creating spaces where we refuse to dominate or be dominated because telling men (and even women) to not be sexist in a sexist world isn't enough.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=Chomsssssssky;2666320]This would be all well and good if patriarchy only affected women. But the fact of the matter is that it affects everyone in society. Personally, male privilege to me is a curse -- it's something that I don't deserve -- it's something that makes me feel like I've committed some heinous crime on the basis of my genetics. Just as feminist men can never understand what women feel under patriarchy, feminist women can never really understand what feminist men feel under patriarchy.

Sorry, this is meant in no way as a personal attack, at all, but the above just comes across as a sort of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude. Yes, I hate that patriarchy exists and i'm a man, but in no way would I compare 'feeling a bit crappy about my genetics' to the very real effects of sexism on women. I never have to worry about being raped every single time i'm out in the dark, I can go to a club and not be cat-called, not be called a slut for wearing nice clothes, not have my ass pinched every two seconds. I am absolutely confident that turning up for a job interview, as a person of child-bearing age, I will not be discriminated against based on my gender.

To then turn round and say 'I feel shit about it too' is understandable, but a bit beyond the pale IMO. Yeah, patriarchy is shitty, but let's not pretend that you and I are 'hard done by' under patriarchy to anything like the extent that women are. Saying such things I think shows actually a lack of understanding of the day-to-day difficulties faced by women.


Don't you think that given that, combating an issue from more than one type of experience/position might offer a more multifaceted and therefore balanced approach to eliminate patriarchy?

Yes, of course, but it's still important that SOME spaces are women-only. I don't think anybody is saying that men should be excluded from feminist struggle - far from it. But there have to be some physical, online and social spaces that women can just have to themselves, y'know? Denying that would really be quite unjust and suspicious.



How is that so different from the fact that it's harder for women to empathize with the person who sees their unjust privilege as a curse?

As i've said above, you simply can't compare 'feeling a bit bad' about your privilege, to actually being dis-privileged and on the receiving end of daily sexism.


Then why not just exclude men who fail to take such things seriously?

As i've said, it's not about excluding, it's about women having their own spaces in certain situations. And, who would decide which men 'take such things seriously'? I'm fairly sure a lot of women would be of the opinion that none of us can take certain issues as seriously as them, so what would you say to that?


(and don't try to say that's like wanting to include the bourgeois in the revolution because obviously the bourgeois class don't see their privilege as a curse or they wouldn't continue to be bourgeois).

What about the bourgeois people who sympathise with the workers in some way? You cannot just separate the two. There may be the odd guy who proclaims their opposition to patriarchy, but from EVERY single woman i've talked to about the issue, their experience is that for ever sympathetic man, there are dozens that are not sympathetic. Why should they give up what they consider a safe space just to, essentially, make you feel a bit better about your role in a society based on patriarchy?

It doesn't mean you can't be involved, it just means that sometimes you need to back off and accept that there are more important things than you feeling a bit bad about things. It's just how it is.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I just wanted to add the following, called 'Why Women Only', from the London Feminist Network. Probably explains from a better perspective than mine why women-only spaces are necessary:

We are a women-only group because we believe it is vital that women have safe and supportive spaces where we can work together politically to campaign for our rights.

We are the experts on our own lives and on what it is to be a woman, in all of our various identities, in a society where we do not have equal political representation, where we are disadvantaged and discriminated against simply because we are women. All too many of us know what it is to experience male violence, including rape, domestic violence, sexual abuse, pornography, prostitution, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called ‘honour’ crimes.

As women we need to be at the forefront of the movement for women’s rights and therefore we need safe, collective spaces where we can organise, share our experiences, learn from each other and support one another.

Our work in women-only campaigns is not in exclusion of other types of political work and many of us are active in mixed groups for peace, against racism, anti-globalisation, lesbian and gay rights, environmental concerns, etc.

We recognise that men care about women’s rights too. As our brothers, lovers, fathers, friends and sons, they have a lot to gain from an equal society where women’s full participation is the norm. This is the type of society we are all working towards, and women-only Feminist campaigns have an important contribution to make in this broader struggle for a fairer world. We also know that most men respect women’s right to self-organisation and we welcome men’s support at our mixed fundraising, educational and other events.

Across the globe women do two thirds of the world’s work, receive one tenth of the world’s income and own less than 1% of the world’s property (Robbins R, 1999). Women account for two thirds of the 1.2 billion people currently living in poverty (DfID).
Nowhere in the world do women earn equal wages to men, across Europe there is a 25% pay gap in like for like work.
Women hold fewer than 13% of the world’s parliamentary seats (DfID).
Here in the UK only 19% of our MP’s are women.
An estimated 70% of those children not in education are female.
Here in the UK 2 women every week are killed by a violent male partner and 1 in 4 women in the UK are affected by domestic violence, including so-called ‘honour’ crimes and forced marriages.
“Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation, and it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace.” – UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
A report by New Philanthropy Capital warns that violence against women is costing British society £40bn a year, but charities which help victims are grossly underfunded. NPC’s report concluded that the expense to public services, lost economic output and knock-on effects of violence against women in all its forms costs the country more than the annual defence budget. (Express, 23 Apr 2008, p33; Independent, 23 Apr 2008, p16)
Canadian Marnie Frey, who was murdered by pig farmer Robert Pickton, left behind a family deeply concerned with how her legacy is being portrayed and used in the media. They do not agree with the use of their daughter’s name in the fight to legalize prostitution. They are “disgusted to think that anyone would think that prostitution is a job. It is not. It is violence against women.” Read more >>
On Wednesday 12 September 2007, The Guardian carried a report of a recent State of the Future Survey by the World Federation of United Nations Associations. This said: “The report says ‘Violence against women by men continues to cause more casualties than wars do today’. One in five women around the world will be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime. The situation is so bad schools should teach girls martial arts for self-defence, it says. ‘We have departments of defence around the world protecting people. What’s the department of defence for women?’ Mr Glenn asked.”

[Skyhilist]

[QUOTE]

Sorry, this is meant in no way as a personal attack, at all, but the above just comes across as a sort of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude. Yes, I hate that patriarchy exists and i'm a man, but in no way would I compare 'feeling a bit crappy about my genetics' to the very real effects of sexism on women. I never have to worry about being raped every single time i'm out in the dark, I can go to a club and not be cat-called, not be called a slut for wearing nice clothes, not have my ass pinched every two seconds. I am absolutely confident that turning up for a job interview, as a person of child-bearing age, I will not be discriminated against based on my gender.

To then turn round and say 'I feel shit about it too' is understandable, but a bit beyond the pale IMO. Yeah, patriarchy is shitty, but let's not pretend that you and I are 'hard done by' under patriarchy to anything like the extent that women are. Saying such things I think shows actually a lack of understanding of the day-to-day difficulties faced by women.

Pretty sure I addressed this already when I explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to equivocate the effects that men and women feel on patriarchy. Of course they aren't close to equal, and I wasn't trying to suggest that.


Yes, of course, but it's still important that SOME spaces are women-only. I don't think anybody is saying that men should be excluded from feminist struggle - far from it. But there have to be some physical, online and social spaces that women can just have to themselves, y'know? Denying that would really be quite unjust and suspicious.

What's really the psychological reason behind this? Lets forget pro-patriarchy males because I think we both agree their exclusion makes sense. Suppose an anti-patriarchy male is included: the general consensus on why this would be bad is that "not a woman, he wont understand." Well wait a minute, given that the person attending may very well be on the wrong end of classism, racism, ablism, etc. how exactly can you say this? Certainly, these struggles have their differences, but they are interwoven and therefore need to be dealt with in an intersectional and all inclusive manner. If they aren't, single issue activists will be the death of us. And besides, if men won't understand, won't it only help increase our understanding on the female perspective to actually hear it straight from their mouths in discussion rather than trying to infer what its like ourselves? I'm pretty sure after hearing women speak, the poor person for example, won't find it the most difficult task to understand what it's like to be treated as inferior through a different system of oppression.



As i've said above, you simply can't compare 'feeling a bit bad' about your privilege, to actually being dis-privileged and on the receiving end of daily sexism.

Sure you can, you just can't logically equivocate (which I wasn't doing to begin with), because they're nowhere close to equal.


As i've said, it's not about excluding, it's about women having their own spaces in certain situations. And, who would decide which men 'take such things seriously'? I'm fairly sure a lot of women would be of the opinion that none of us can take certain issues as seriously as them, so what would you say to that?

If this is the case and every single man who wants to join proves this right, then every single man should not be allowed, but on a case by case basis. If someone proves them wrong, then they still should be allowed.


What about the bourgeois people who sympathise with the workers in some way?

Example?


You cannot just separate the two. There may be the odd guy who proclaims their opposition to patriarchy, but from EVERY single woman i've talked to about the issue, their experience is that for ever sympathetic man, there are dozens that are not sympathetic.

Then 1 out of every few dozen can still not logically be excluded. That's the one I'm talking about.


Why should they give up what they consider a safe space just to, essentially, make you feel a bit better about your role in a society based on patriarchy?

a) Why would it be unsafe if they'd filtered out the males who aren't sympathetic?

b) Because the revolution must be intersectional and we shouldn't be divorcing issues of racism, sexism, classism, transphobia, etc. from each other whenever possible and should always seek to make the connection not just within but across these systems of oppression in order to better understand and therefore be able to destroy them.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pretty sure I addressed this already when I explicitly stated that I wasn't trying to equivocate the effects that men and women feel on patriarchy. Of course they aren't close to equal, and I wasn't trying to suggest that.

Then I don't understand the problem? Men and women have different problems in a patriarchy, so they sometimes need their own spaces to discuss these different problems. What's the problem?



What's really the psychological reason behind this? Lets forget pro-patriarchy males because I think we both agree their exclusion makes sense. Suppose an anti-patriarchy male is included: the general consensus on why this would be bad is that "not a woman, he wont understand." Well wait a minute, given that the person attending may very well be on the wrong end of classism, racism, ablism, etc. how exactly can you say this? Certainly, these struggles have their differences, but they are interwoven and therefore need to be dealt with in an intersectional and all inclusive manner. If they aren't, single issue activists will be the death of us.

I don't think you can equate having some separate spaces with single issue activism. The point isn't for women only to campaign on feminism, or to do it totally detached from other struggles, or from men. If you read the LFN spoiler in the post I made above, you'll see that they are very active in a range of sectional struggles, as a group and as individuals. And further to that, they have many spaces which are open to all, not just women. But, they point out, that women face unique and specific problems of sexism, and so they, the women, want their own space to discuss these. If that's what they want, then can you not see how you, as a man, might be making them uncomfortable by rejecting such a demand?


And besides, if men won't understand, won't it only help increase our understanding on the female perspective to actually hear it straight from their mouths in discussion rather than trying to infer what its like ourselves?

As I said above, I don't think any feminist group advocates wholesale separation of women and men. That women sometimes want their own personal spaces to discuss things has NO bearing on my ability to support feminism.


I'm pretty sure after hearing women speak, the poor person for example, won't find it the most difficult task to understand what it's like to be treated as inferior through a different system of oppression.

What? I'm fairly sure that if I go to a meeting and hear a woman talk about being the victim, for example, of a rape, I will still not understand even 1% what it's like to be treated in such a way? And shit like that is systemic.


Then 1 out of every few dozen can still not logically be excluded. That's the one I'm talking about.

If women don't want them there, then every man can be excluded. Granted, if some women decided they wanted to break away from men and have nothing to do with them, ever, i'd challenge that, but I don't understand why, in your view, women aren't allowed to sometimes meet away from the gaze of men? Why does it bother you so much? If No More Page 3 want to have a women's only night down the local, are you that pissed off that you're missing out, when there are a wealth of all-inclusive events other than that?


a) Why would it be unsafe if they'd filtered out the males who aren't sympathetic?

Because someone you, a man, views as sympathetic may not be viewed as such by women, the oppressed group in question.

[human strike]

a) Why would it be unsafe if they'd filtered out the males who aren't sympathetic?

Because patriarchy functions on the threat of male violence. But more than that, gender is deeply ingrained. Women are condition to behave in a certain way around men, to be passive and submissive. Have you ever been in a meeting where there are about the same number as women to men? It's usually male voices that are dominant despite the gender parity. I've seen the same women who are quiet in rooms dominated by male voices being a lot more vocal and comfortable speaking when women outnumber men. This is just one obvious way in which the gender make-up of a space affects people's behaviour.

[Quail]

While I entirely agree with this, I guess I'm just sick of having these conversations (I'm certainly not calling you out here by any means). What I mean is, we have a handful of good posters when it comes to these issues, who as opposed to primarily discussing among each other in a productive manner, pretty much take turns combating the reactionary shit that gets spewed on this forum. I mean your post I quoted, is absolutely spot on, but its also part of the problem (I'm guilty of this too). I think, just for once, instead of posting abstract slogans, we should really discuss the nuts and bolts of how a party/political organization, could best orientate itself to various oppressed groups. I mean I certainly don't have the answers here, that's why I'm asking the question. But not only do I know any pertinent answers could help me (and hopefully others) in my real life political work, but I also think it would be a more interesting and productive discussion, then most of these types of threads end up as.
I think one of the best things a group can do is actually listen to people in oppressed groups. Personally I think the best way to do this is to allow people who identify as women, LGBT, etc., have spaces where they can go away and discuss things and then feed back to the rest of the organisation who can then take on board what's been said and maybe discuss it together.


I have some thoughts on this which I'd really appreciate if people could feedback on and help me develop.

The need for women only spaces is obvious. Oppressed groups self-determining the terms on which they form and operate is also a pretty obvious principle. The system of male domination only exists because of the threat (and often more than just the threat) of male violence. If women are going to be able to engage in feminist movement effectively then they need spaces that are free from this threat and, yes, any man is a potential threat or at least a perceived threat. The suggestion that this is sexist against men is perverse.

Women's liberation is not gained through autonomy from men though. Whilst these spaces are valuable and essential (and perhaps liberating in a limited sense), they should not be seen as the object of liberation or a goal in their own right.

So what is the goal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is a situation where women and men relate to each other in a radically different way, right? Where actually they relate in a way where they are not women or men anymore, but as singularities without dominant or submissive groups or genders.

Assuming this to be the case, what are the dangers of only creating feminist spaces where men are spectators rather than active participants in struggle? Is it possible to create situations where women and men are able to relate to each other radically differently - as something other than women and men - if feminist spaces and initiatives are always led by women? Does this not affirm gender? Sometimes we see feminist (or "profeminist") groups that are led by men and without women, but I don't really see how this resolves the problem in the reverse situation.
First, I don't think men should be "spectators" in the struggle. They should definitely take an active role. But, I think that generally women know best what needs to be done to combat sexism. We are in a better position to say "our ideas and contributions are not heard/taken seriously because of x, y and z, and this is how we propose to improve the situation." Obviously then the men have to listen, and a group or organisation can work together to work on whatever issues have been raised.


There are consciousness raising initiatives where men are encouraged to reflect on their own privilege and the ways in which they dominate and oppress women. Whilst these are useful, I seriously question how far these can actually lead men to stop oppressive behaviour. I think a politics that limits the role of allies from oppressor identities to reflecting on their own privilege actually privileges and fetishises oppression. The point becomes to be as oppressed as possible rather than as liberated as possible. We see this all the time, rather than using their male/white/heterosexual/bourgeois guilt and privilege to challenge systems of oppression, these people look for or appropriate oppressed status (sometimes even inventing ways in which they are oppressed). Ultimately, this kind of politics maintains a logic where the dominant identity is the subject capable of self-reflexivity and the oppressed subject as the occasion for self-reflexivity. We confess our privilege but maintain it all the same.
I agree that this is counterproductive. The point of reflecting on your privilege is not simply to sit there and say, “Hey, so I'm a man and I'm privileged.” The point is to then ask yourself how that is affecting the way that you interact with other people – “Do I talk over women? Do I dismiss their concerns? Have I honestly put myself in their shoes and thought about what it means to be a woman in society and what needs to change?” If people are looking for new ways to be oppressed (which I don't think I've come across tbh, but anyway) then it's a failure on their part to be honest with themselves. I think there is a culture, especially in leftist circles, where because obviously outright sexist behaviour is deeply frowned up on, people are embarrassed and feel ashamed of admitting that they might have lingering patriarchal attitudes. I think that's counterproductive because you if you can't put your hands up and admit to something small like always letting women make tea and wash up, then how are you ever going to stop doing that? That's not to say that we should accept sexist practices, but if we bring up a specific example of sexism (such as making tea or whatever) then it should be okay for the men we're talking to to say, “Yes. Actually we have been sitting back and letting you guys do the menial tasks that nobody wants to do all the time.” Then we can move forward and put in practical measures to stop it from continuing to happen. Instead, what tends to happen is people get all defensive and nothing changes.


Feminism has to offer men something more than an opportunity to feel better about themselves for being "allies" whilst still dominating women. It needs to offer an opportunity for men to deconstruct their own masculinity and to actually stop dominating others, to effectively stop being men. (I think this would appeal to a lot of men who are inherently (to varying degrees) alienated by masculinity - within patriarchy men get treated better than most women and we undeniably benefit in all sorts of ways, but it still fuckin' sucks to be a man.) The reverse is also true for women, of course. A feminism that affirms masculinity also affirms femininity and a condition of submission. I do not accept that we can think our way into a different way of acting. We can only act our way into a different way of thinking.

The challenge, I think, is balancing the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they exclude men, with the need for spaces that are liberating for women because they allow for a radically different way of relating to people free from strict gender norms (or even gender altogether) which necessarily includes men.

I've sort of just chucked a load of thoughts that have been buzzing round my head onto here but I hope that makes sense.
There are quite a lot of ways in which patriarchy affects men negatively too, and usually they're kind of the flipside of the female gender role. I use this example all the time, but whatever – consider that women are more likely to get custody of children. Why is that? Well, first of all women are seen as naturally more nurturing than men and so better parents, and secondly women are expected to take time off work or work part time in order to look after the children (which is also supported by the right to more maternity leave than paternity leave) so chances are women do spend more time with their children and do most of the work caring for them. Childrearing is an issue (one of many, really) which I think male and female feminists could and should collaborate on. How many fathers want to spend more time with their new child? How many women would appreciate being able to share the burden of work with their partners? In order for that to happen we need to question the idea that women should be the ones to stay home with a new baby, that men should be out working to provide, etc.


Uhh sounds to me that the group these women were initially in was full not of just men but of men who clearly support patriarchy. Why not just have a new group then where anyone who showed even vague support for patriarchy could be purged from the group then, rather than assuming that all men will be that way? If the men from their former group act the way that you say then they still wouldn't be allowed; it'd just be on a more logical basis.
The problem is that all men, even anarchists who consider themselves against patriarchy, have grown up in a patriarchal society and the truth is that everyone absorbs those values. Many guys just don't realise that they're doing it. But more importantly, what would that achieve? If you refuse to associate with anyone who is even a teeny bit sexist (whether subconsciously or otherwise), how are those people ever going to find out they're being sexist and change for the better? We need to expose people to feminist ideas on as large a scale as possible, not avoid anyone who doesn't agree with us.


I still don't understand: why ban all men instead of just banning those who show support for patriarchy? It's obviously different from alienating the bourgeois during the revolution. You choose to be bourgeois but you don't choose to be male. So, seeing as this is a women's struggle, could someone who is female explain to me why makes who fully oppose patriarchy should rationally be exlcuded from groups that want to abolish it? All of the examples provided so far have only dealt with problems that would arise if males supporting patriarchy were part of such groups. Please, explain what problems would arise if the only makes that we're part of such groups expliitely opposed patriarchy?
The fact is that a lot of women don't feel comfortable talking about thinks like harassment or abuse in front of guys. It might not be rational, but people who have been abused by men might find it difficult to trust other men even if they haven't actually done anything wrong.
Plus there's the added complication – how do we know the guys coming actually oppose patriarchy? There's a difference between opposing patriarchy in the abstract, and actually acting like someone who isn't sexist.


It's not about being let into women's spaces, it's about creating spaces that don't belong to anyone, or rather, belong to everyone. This is in no way an argument against women only spaces - it's an argument for feminist spaces that are geared towards negating/overcoming (I'm not sure what word to use here) gender. Do we seriously expect men to unlearn sexism and masculinity simply by reflecting on their own behaviour?
No, I think men need to work with feminists, as I've said multiple times already. I just think that women need spaces of their own as well.

[Skyhilist]

The problem is that all men, even anarchists who consider themselves against patriarchy, have grown up in a patriarchal society and the truth is that everyone absorbs those values. Many guys just don't realise that they're doing it.

Yes I was never denying this -- my prior point was that men should be excluded on a case by case basis depending on whether patriarchical actions were ever expressed, whether voluntary or involuntary (rather than generalizing to all men), specifically from the meetings that have been proposed as women only, and not from all feminist struggles.


But more importantly, what would that achieve? If you refuse to associate with anyone who is even a teeny bit sexist (whether subconsciously or otherwise), how are those people ever going to find out they're being sexist and change for the better? We need to expose people to feminist ideas on as large a scale as possible, not avoid anyone who doesn't agree with us.

You misunderstand me -- I wasn't suggesting exclude men who show any slight shortcomings all of the time, I was referring specifically to the meetings that people have proposed ought to be women only.


The fact is that a lot of women don't feel comfortable talking about thinks like harassment or abuse in front of guys. It might not be rational, but people who have been abused by men might find it difficult to trust other men even if they haven't actually done anything wrong.

There you go, again, this is specifically what I was looking for -- a reason why women wouldn't be comfortable with anti-patriarchy males in the room. Now that you (and whatever singularity) have actually provided that, I understand the basis for your argument now and no longer disagree.


Plus there's the added complication – how do we know the guys coming actually oppose patriarchy? There's a difference between opposing patriarchy in the abstract, and actually acting like someone who isn't sexist.

The point I was making previously was meant to say essentially that it was of relevance whether or not the man was undermining the feminist meeting occurring (which would depend on how they acted outwardly), not whether or not it could easily determined whether or not that person had become deeply ingrained with patriarchical values throughout their life.

[Skyhilist]

Then I don't understand the problem? Men and women have different problems in a patriarchy, so they sometimes need their own spaces to discuss these different problems. What's the problem?

Certainly I'm not going to try to hold some protest for women having their own spaces -- what confused me was the logical basis for doing so, that is, assuming that males involved aren't undermining attempts to defeat patriarchy. But I think Quail did a nice job of clearing that up. But since you say "Men and women have different problems in patriarchy, so sometimes they need their own spaces", does this mean that you also support exclusively male meetings where males can discuss their own shortcomings and how to best handle their unjustified positions of privilege (before such positions are hopefully dismantled that is)?


Women are condition to behave in a certain way around men, to be passive and submissive. Have you ever been in a meeting where there are about the same number as women to men

You're basically saying then that patriarchy can make even feminist women subconsciously more submissive (and less willing to speak their minds) in the presence of men due to patriarchical conditioning that is inherently ingrained in all of us? If so, that's a fair point, and that's what I was specifically looking for -- the reason that women would feel uncomfortable with even the most anti-patriarchy males in the room.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

But since you say "Men and women have different problems in patriarchy, so sometimes they need their own spaces", does this mean that you also support exclusively male meetings where males can discuss their own shortcomings and how to best handle their unjustified positions of privilege (before such positions are hopefully dismantled that is)?
.

Well, no. At least, i've never, ever met a single (self-identifying) male feminist who moans at being hard done by, by patriarchy. I'd be incredibly suspicious of any group claiming as such, and certainly wouldn't want to go to their meeting, or support their meeting.

But yes, Quail ended up summing up my arguments a lot more eloquently than myself, as usual. Hope it's all cleared up now :)

[Skyhilist]

Well, no. At least, i've never, ever met a single (self-identifying) male feminist who moans at being hard done by, by patriarchy. I'd be incredibly suspicious of any group claiming as such, and certainly wouldn't want to go to their meeting, or support their meeting.

No I don't mean like an all male group in which males discussed how they felt bad about having privilege and whatnot. I mean a group in which males attempted to better themselves by understanding the ways in which patriarchy has been ingrained into all of us and then working to help eliminate it within ourselves. Couldn't you argue for an all male group to do that on the basis that men might be more defensive with women in the group due to our positions within patriarchy and the patriarchical ideas that have been ingrained into us whether we like it or not? I mean sort of like how feminist women might act more submissive if men were in the room due to such a response being programmed into them, which might also be problematic.


But yes, Quail ended up summing up my arguments a lot more eloquently than myself, as usual. Hope it's all cleared up now :)

For the most part yeah I understand a lot better now, thanks everyone.

[human strike]

No I don't mean like an all male group in which males discussed how they felt bad about having privilege and whatnot. I mean a group in which males attempted to better themselves by understanding the ways in which patriarchy has been ingrained into all of us and then working to help eliminate it within ourselves. Couldn't you argue for an all male group to do that on the basis that men might be more defensive with women in the group due to our positions within patriarchy and the patriarchical ideas that have been ingrained into us whether we like it or not? I mean sort of like how feminist women might act more submissive if men were in the room due to such a response being programmed into them, which might also be problematic.


These exist and they're called consciousness raising groups. Women's CR groups are more common but men's ones also happen and I'm (hopefully) helping to organise one myself very soon.

[Decolonize The Left]

No I don't mean like an all male group in which males discussed how they felt bad about having privilege and whatnot. I mean a group in which males attempted to better themselves by understanding the ways in which patriarchy has been ingrained into all of us and then working to help eliminate it within ourselves. Couldn't you argue for an all male group to do that on the basis that men might be more defensive with women in the group due to our positions within patriarchy and the patriarchical ideas that have been ingrained into us whether we like it or not? I mean sort of like how feminist women might act more submissive if men were in the room due to such a response being programmed into them, which might also be problematic.

I have never learned anything supremely worthwhile from other males regarding sexism and patriarchy. Everything I learned, which is considerable, came from women. Just like white people don't need to get together to talk about racism, dudes don't need to get together to talk about sexism.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have never learned anything supremely worthwhile from other males regarding sexism and patriarchy. Everything I learned, which is considerable, came from women. Just like white people don't need to get together to talk about racism, dudes don't need to get together to talk about sexism.

I actually disagree with you, strongly.
For one, dudes relying on women to help them work through their patriarchal shit is obnoxious - we need to start addressing this shit ourselves, instead of being another burden on women who are trying to organize women.
Second, you might be familiar with books, videos, pamphlets, essays - women have made a lot of this shit, and if groups of men would take the initiative to organize themselves to study and discuss it, men and women would benefit.

I spent one day a week over the summer in an men's study group, Montreal Against Misogyny (you can read the initial callout for the group here (http://unionforgenderempowerment.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/montreal-against-misogyny-a-uge-summer-stipend-project/)), and found it very valuable. It involved a mixture of readings, discussions, presentations, workshops and work volunteering with feminist organizations. I think if more men undertook such projects it would save many women many headaches (not to mention hours explaining shit that dudes should take the initiative to figure out).

[Decolonize The Left]

I actually disagree with you, strongly.
For one, dudes relying on women to help them work through their patriarchal shit is obnoxious - we need to start addressing this shit ourselves, instead of being another burden on women who are trying to organize women.
Second, you might be familiar with books, videos, pamphlets, essays - women have made a lot of this shit, and if groups of men would take the initiative to organize themselves to study and discuss it, men and women would benefit.

I spent one day a week over the summer in an men's study group, Montreal Against Misogyny (you can read the initial callout for the group here (http://unionforgenderempowerment.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/montreal-against-misogyny-a-uge-summer-stipend-project/)), and found it very valuable. It involved a mixture of readings, discussions, presentations, workshops and work volunteering with feminist organizations. I think if more men undertook such projects it would save many women many headaches (not to mention hours explaining shit that dudes should take the initiative to figure out).

To be fair, I'm not saying no good what-so-ever can come from dudes talking about patriarchy, although I can see how my comment could have come off as such. I'm simply saying that there's only so much guys can do amongst themselves without appropriating the power that is necessary in the feminist movement.

For example: a dude's only reading group, while noble, will definitely receive more attention than a feminist group. The positive side is that dudes got more educated on feminism, awesome. The negative side is that it takes away from the women's group by default as it is a dominant event within society.

In short, the position of men within feminism is secondary and mostly passive. There are instances where it is important to become active and vocal, to march and support, to play the vital role of ally, but on the whole, it's our job to sit down and shut up. Women have all the strength they need to achieve liberation, it's a matter of opening up the avenues necessary to exercise that strength and those avenues are clogged with guys (no matter how well meaning).

[bcbm]

yeah i think men's groups are possibly a good idea but i dunno. in one place i lived there was a guy pushing to form such a group who was basically a huge pile of shit and probably just trying to look like a 'cool feminist dude' to impress women or something.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

yeah i think men's groups are possibly a good idea but i dunno. in one place i lived there was a guy pushing to form such a group who was basically a huge pile of shit and probably just trying to look like a 'cool feminist dude' to impress women or something.

I imagine that a men's group might come about out of necessity - for example if there is a mixed group and the women find that the men are lacking in understanding of some part of feminist theory, and want to learn. That's the sort of situation where a 'mens reading group' on feminism might be a cool idea, but honestly as you say, I find that there's a lot of posturing by men in relation to feminism. I think it's perfectly acceptable to take a back seat as a male feminist and just be supportive - women's liberation will ultimately not be decided by our support (nice though i'm sure it is!), it'll be decided by the effectiveness of the action women take, for one.

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

I think it's true to say that there should be women only groups, particularly when dealing with abuse and intimidation. However, I don't think it can be at all productive to exclude all men from the feminist movement. It's not comparable with the ruling class - we are seeking for them to abolished, whereas - with a few radical queer exceptions - there is no likely possibility of abolishing gender and the abolition of 'traditional' gender roles and patriarchy is hardly going to be achieved if men aren't present. Of course women's liberation is a movement by women for women, but men need to be drawn into the movement as well, because they are - sadly - not going to just go away.

[#FF0000]

Well I mean, it isn't as if there aren't/weren't a number of wealthy folks from a "bourgeois" background involved in communist organizations and movements. However it wouldn't make sense for them to be running that shit, would it?

See what I'm saying?

[Lily Briscoe]

yeah i think men's groups are possibly a good idea but i dunno. in one place i lived there was a guy pushing to form such a group who was basically a huge pile of shit and probably just trying to look like a 'cool feminist dude' to impress women or something.

Those are the worst. "Listen, babe, I host consent workshops so I know what's up". Not that anyone here comes across like that, of course.....

[SmirkerOfTheWorld]

Those are the worst. "Listen, babe, I host consent workshops so I know what's up". Not that anyone here comes across like that, of course.....

Bit like, "listen comrade, I work in Wall Street, so I know how capitalism works..."