question to the guys: Feminist or ally?

[Rosa Partizan]

The idea for this thread occurred to me when I talked to a close male friend of mine about feminism some days ago. He was like, why should I call myself ally? I don't like that word, I am certainly a feminist, being aware of the fact that I will never experience structural oppression based on gender. What do you think about these concepts? Where do you see the difference, or is it even the same to you? What do you call yourself? I'll try to make a poll. Female opinions are welcome, too (but obviously not in the poll, please)

[rylasasin]

... Wth is an ally?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Neither. The term "feminist" is associated with theories, originating in the New Left, that posit that women are a class and/or that the structural oppression of women transcends class society. The term "ally" presupposes a certain model of struggle that I consider completely incorrect.

I am a socialist, which means I support the liberation of women. If I had to pick a label based on my attitude to the womens' question, I would call myself a womens' libber.

[#FF0000]

... Wth is an ally?

Some folks think that men can't technically be feminists because feminism is supposed to be a movement by/for women and men don't experience the same oppression based on gender as women, etc. etc. etc. and so men who support feminism would be called "allies" instead.

I'm not sold on that but I'm somewhat sympathetic to it, just because I'm suspicious of men who make a big deal about calling themselves feminists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am a socialist, which means I support the liberation of women.
The liberation of women is by no means inherent to the term socialist. Misogyny and socialism have a long linked history.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The liberation of women is by no means inherent to the term socialist. Misogyny and socialism have a long linked history.

So do socialism and racism, and so on. The thing is, though, one can't be a consistent socialist and a misogynist since women make up the majority of the working class, and the oppression of women is essential to the process by which capitalism reproduces itself. In that sense, womens' liberation is inherent to socialism.

This is not to say that socialists should not fight for womens' liberation now "because socialism will take care of all that", you know I find such sentiment ridiculous and crypto-mysogynist.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

So do socialism and racism, and so on. The thing is, though, one can't be a consistent socialist and a misogynist since women make up the majority of the working class, and the oppression of women is essential to the process by which capitalism reproduces itself. In that sense, womens' liberation is inherent to socialism.

This is not to say that socialists should not fight for womens' liberation now "because socialism will take care of all that", you know I find such sentiment ridiculous and crypto-mysogynist.

To be honest I don't care that misogyny and racism are essential to capitalism, or that women or minorities make up a majority of the working class. These things should be fought regardless.

[Sinister Intents]

"Ich bin ein Berliner."


I selected feminist, should I have selected ally because I'm physically male? I'm not a man, and I've always thought men can in fact be feminists.

[sixdollarchampagne]

To my way of thinking, women are feminists or they aren't, and men can be allies of a movement for women's equality, which would be my definition of feminism. To talk about male "feminists" makes me a little uncomfortable; it just sounds silly, suburban, superficial and over-enthusiastic. Does supporting the equality of Latinos in the US make one a Latino? Of course not. I spend a lot of time translating political texts from Spanish, but that doesn't make me a member of any Spanish-speaking nationality. There is enough silliness in the world already, without the male "feminists."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be honest I don't care that misogyny and racism are essential to capitalism, or that women or minorities make up a majority of the working class. These things should be fought regardless.

Be that as it may, the fact that the oppression of women is rooted in the mode of production means a lot, politically. It means that in this epoch of capitalism in its death agonies, liberals and other bourgeois formations have nothing to offer to women. It means that there is a real community of interest between the proletariat and all of the plebeian women everywhere, which is a much firmer bond than bonds based on what "should be done". It means that boneheads who want to enslave women have no business calling themselves socialist and need to be drummed out of the movement and so on.

[Quail]

To my way of thinking, women are feminists or they aren't, and men can be allies of a movement for women's equality, which would be my definition of feminism. To talk about male "feminists" makes me a little uncomfortable; it just sounds silly, suburban, superficial and over-enthusiastic. Does supporting the equality of Latinos in the US make one a Latino? Of course not. I spend a lot of time translating political texts from Spanish, but that doesn't make me a member of any Spanish-speaking nationality. There is enough silliness in the world already, without the male "feminists."

That analogy makes no sense. Of course supporting the liberation of women doesn't make you a woman.

I personally don't have a problem with men identifying either way. Though I think the feminist movement should be led by those who suffer most under patriarchy, I don't see why men can't call themselves feminists even if they're playing more of a supporting role. Obviously I do have a problem with men calling themselves feminists, while either doing nothing or holding sexist views. It seems that certain sections of the left call themselves feminist thinking that claiming that label means they don't have to bother engaging in any critical examination of themselves or their organisations.

I also agree that you can't be a consistent socialist without also actively fighting against gender-based oppression, but I also think it is important to acknowledge that fighting oppression is an important part of the wider struggle against capitalism.

[Left Voice]

To my way of thinking, women are feminists or they aren't, and men can be allies of a movement for women's equality, which would be my definition of feminism. To talk about male "feminists" makes me a little uncomfortable; it just sounds silly, suburban, superficial and over-enthusiastic. Does supporting the equality of Latinos in the US make one a Latino? Of course not. I spend a lot of time translating political texts from Spanish, but that doesn't make me a member of any Spanish-speaking nationality. There is enough silliness in the world already, without the male "feminists."
That is a broken analogy. Following the logic of your analogy, males supporting equality for females would make the male a 'female', not a 'feminist'. This is obviously not the case, hence the analogy does not work. Somebody supporting equality for Latinos certainly wouldn't make them a Latino, but it would make them somebody who opposes racism against Latinos - not merely an 'ally', whatever that is supposed to mean.

I would consider myself a feminist, although that doesn't mean I think the issue can be viewed in vacuum and detached from other issues. Just because a person might see class as the root cause of discrimination against females, it doesn't somehow imply that you don't take female emancipation seriously in themselves. Indeed the mistake that too many people on the left have historically made is to discard sexist issues as simply a product of capitalism, resulting in these issues not only becoming ignored by those who should be taking it the most seriously, but often reinforced.

In the same way that you don't need to be a prol to be a socialist, or black to oppose racism, it's perfectly possible for a guy to be a feminist. A man is not only able to recognise misogynistic behaviour, men should.

[Hrafn]

Being a Zionist doesn't make you a Jew, sixdollar.

[Sinister Intents]

Being a Zionist doesn't make you a Jew, sixdollar.

Lol Trots. It makes me think someone supporting LGBT stuff immediately makes then gay and trans, and straights can't support GLBT stuffs. Broken analogies are great

[human strike]

'Pro-feminist' is a term I see used too. I have problems with all of them but prefer to simply use 'feminist'. 'Ally' is tricky for me because yes it does highlight intersectionality, allies together in different struggles (against gender and class, for example) etc., but it feels like I'm saying I've no interest vested in the abolition of patriarchy for myself, which isn't true; I'm involved in this struggle for some very self-interested reasons. Yes, I gain significant privileges and material benefits from patriarchy and in no way is the suffering of men comparable to the oppression of women, but there is an unwanted suffering all the same and that is a (or the) source of my opposition. Most women and self-identifying feminists I've heard express an opinion on this or I've spoken to personally about it haven't objected to men calling themselves feminists, otherwise I would change my mind.

I agree that we could simply describe ourselves as 'communist' (or 'socialist') and that term for me certainly holds the liberation of women as core and fundamental, but to reject the label of 'feminist' I fear contributes to keeping the struggle for women's liberation invisible. We should call ourselves 'communist' and 'feminist' (regardless of whether or not those are in practice different things).

[ProletariatPower]

I consider myself as an ally of Feminism, this is because I do not actively campaign for the Feminist movement myself but I do support the movement.

[BIXX]

Is it not true that the oppression of women is the original oppression inherent to our society? From the earliest stages of civilization the oppression of women has been present. Why do we always say that the abolition of capitalism takes priority? To me it just is part of that whole "when we have communism we will no longer have sexism" line that white male socialists use to silence women's concerns about sexism.


When someone believes women ought to not be oppressed, how does that not make them a feminist?

I'm not a guy but whatever. I think everyone who supports the emancipation of women consistently is a feminist.

[Fakeblock]

Is it not true that the oppression of women is the original oppression inherent to our society? From the earliest stages of civilization the oppression of women has been present. Why do we always say that the abolition of capitalism takes priority? To me it just is part of that whole "when we have communism we will no longer have sexism" line that white male socialists use to silence women's concerns about sexism.


When someone believes women ought to not be oppressed, how does that not make them a feminist?

I'm not a guy but whatever. I think everyone who supports the emancipation of women consistently is a feminist.

Capitalism in its broader sense is more than just the simple economic labour - capital relation. Capitalism and patriarchy do not form two distinct spheres or categories - rather patriarchy is one relation, which forms a part of a larger capitalist totality. That isn't to say that patriarchy is unimportant, but that the struggle against it is an inherent aspect of the struggle against capitalism. As such, it should neither be treated as a "side issue" nor the "main issue" for any communist, seeing as we recognise (1) that the emancipation of women can't be achieved within the boundaries of the capitalist mode of production and (2) that we can't abolish capitalism without abolishing patriarchy. The emancipation of women is thus both a precondition for and a result of the abolition of capitalism, two simultaneous processes.

From this follows that the emancipation of women is, in fact, in the class interest of all workers, male and female. Therefore men can't be seen as mere allies in a struggle that concerns only women. Of course, it would be strategically flawed and hypocritical to award men an equal say in matters concerning women's emancipation, but it is necessary to view men and women workers as codependent, since the abolition of capitalism and thus patriarchy can only be achieved through the combined efforts of the entire class.

[RedWorker]

You really make a lot of silly threads. :D Why not both? And does such a difference in terminology even matter?

Additionally you are not considering gender here. Because he is biologically a male he must identify with the "male" gender?

To answer the question: I'm male, don't really identify too much or too less with any gender, and consider myself a feminist.

[Rosa Partizan]

I feel deeply sorry for not living up to your intelligence standards. Asshole.

[synthesis]

What if we looked at it like we look at the term "revolutionary"? I mean, people shouldn't call themselves revolutionaries unless they are actually engaged in a revolution; until that point, just call yourself a revolutionist or revolutionary communist or someone with revolutionary class politics. So maybe calling people "feminists" could be linked to that. The degree of your ability to call yourself a feminist would be proportional with your engagement in feminist struggle. I don't know if that's fair, but it's an idea.

[RedWorker]

I feel deeply sorry for not living up to your intelligence standards. Asshole.

I didn't mean to be offensive. I actually thought that was a light hearted way of putting it. :confused:

Perhaps you are merely not a native English speaker so you didn't realize that wasn't rude at all (or maybe I just expressed myself wrongly?). Again, not trying to be offensive here... just so there isn't any confusion. :D

It also has nothing to do with intelligence. I only said that you often make substance-lacking threads about minor issues - for instance this one, about the difference between these 2 words. But you are free to discuss whatever you want. It was just a side comment meant to be friendly, I don't give it any importance.

I am not a native English speaker, so perhaps someone here can clear up whether the word "silly" can be offensive or not and in which cases, in which case I shall refrain from using it this way.

[human strike]

What if we looked at it like we look at the term "revolutionary"? I mean, people shouldn't call themselves revolutionaries unless they are actually engaged in a revolution; until that point, just call yourself a revolutionist or revolutionary communist or someone with revolutionary class politics. So maybe calling people "feminists" could be linked to that. The degree of your ability to call yourself a feminist would be proportional with your engagement in feminist struggle. I don't know if that's fair, but it's an idea.

I kind of completely disagree. Being a feminist - just like being a revolutionary (in a more general sense) - is a very ordinary thing to be. A distinction between 'feminist' and 'Feminist' is more useful, but that comes down to consciousness and self-identifying.

[synthesis]

I kind of completely disagree. Being a feminist - just like being a revolutionary (in a more general sense) - is a very ordinary thing to be. A distinction between 'feminist' and 'Feminist' is more useful, but that comes down to consciousness and self-identifying.

That's up to you, I guess. Personally, I think anyone who calls themselves a revolutionary without actually being involved in any kind of revolution is a tool. Say you agree with revolution, call it revolutionary politics, whatever you want, but for someone to say "I'm a revolutionary" that should be dependent on whether one is engaged in an actual revolution.

I'm not saying this should also apply to feminism; there's a lot more room to maneuver in terms of whether or not someone could be called a feminist simply by virtue of agreeing with the tenets of feminism rather than by virtue of their activity in furthering the feminist agenda. It's just an alternative way to think about when the appellation applies and when it doesn't.

[consuming negativity]

It's complicated. For the most part, I go out of my way to portray myself as ungendered and, unless I am sure about someone else's, other people as well. I am speaking in the context of Revleft here, but in certain situations such as this one, what biological sex and gender I have are sort of necessary when looking at my opinion on this issue.

There are feminists who are women who insist that men should not be calling themselves feminists, or that they cannot call themselves feminists. However, I in my mind identify myself as a feminist because of the views I have, although I do not participate in pro-women's activism in any way that I would consider significant and worthy of appreciation. Of course, the obvious thing to point out here is that me, a male, is potentially ignoring what women think about me calling myself a feminist over a simple word designation, which would be really shitty of me. And so, when asked to differentiate myself, I consider myself an ally of feminists and don't make it a point to argue with women over whether or not I should be allowed to claim the label of "feminist" for myself, because it's ultimately meaningful only to them; I don't really care about what I'm called, as my opinions don't change. But if calling myself an ally rather than a feminist makes feminist women happy, then why not just make the differentiation in recognition that the movement isn't mine and the decisions aren't mine to make? And so I chose the third option.

[PhoenixAsh]

there are feminists who argue that other feminists can't be feminists because they have the wrong sex to be actual feminists and this is supposed to be a feminist position.

[Loony Le Fist]

The idea for this thread occurred to me when I talked to a close male friend of mine about feminism some days ago. He was like, why should I call myself ally? I don't like that word, I am certainly a feminist, being aware of the fact that I will never experience structural oppression based on gender. What do you think about these concepts? Where do you see the difference, or is it even the same to you? What do you call yourself? I'll try to make a poll. Female opinions are welcome, too (but obviously not in the poll, please)

Unless I misunderstand here, a feminist is someone who advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. I would say that accurately describes me.

[human strike]

That's up to you, I guess. Personally, I think anyone who calls themselves a revolutionary without actually being involved in any kind of revolution is a tool. Say you agree with revolution, call it revolutionary politics, whatever you want, but for someone to say "I'm a revolutionary" that should be dependent on whether one is engaged in an actual revolution.

I just don't think most revolutionaries call themselves revolutionaries. Who isn't engaged in class struggle?

[Loony Le Fist]

I am not a native English speaker, so perhaps someone here can clear up whether the word "silly" can be offensive or not and in which cases, in which case I shall refrain from using it this way.

I can see how someone can definitely take offense, since it can be construed as being talked down to. Silly means lacking common sense, foolish, and absurd. Much like how Texan's in the US use the expressions "Oh, bless your heart!" or "Oh, bless their heart!" in ironic condescension. It carries the implication that a person is deserving of sympathy or pity, rather than more forceful terms.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't classify myself as a "feminist".

The political positions of feminism (like equalization of domestic labor) are generally positions that I support, though.

[TC]

I have an alternative position:

I oppose men describing themselves as "ally's to feminists" and believe that a man who endorses the core principles of feminism* should describe themselves as feminists.

Feminism is a philosophical and political position and philosophical and political positions can be advanced by any person. We should not judge a position by the content of the person proposing it.

For men to see women as fully equal persons - they should be just as devoted to achieving the full liberation and equality of women as they would be for men. This doesn't mean being an ally to feminisms it means being a feminist. To be an ally means to be in some way an adjunct or supporter, rather than being part of the movement oneself. Taking that secondary role is selling sex equality short.

While women's experiences of sexism and patriarchal oppression can give political insight, they can also give rise to reactionary positions and many of the worst anti-feminists are women. For example there is no greater misogynist and no greater opponent of feminism than Phyllis Schlafly. It is everyone's responsible to come to their own critically considered, undogmatic viewpoint about issues effecting large portions of the population without deferring to others. To do anything less is to treat people different from yourself unequally to those you think are more like yourself.

So if you believe in feminism* don't call yourself a "feminist ally" - call yourself a feminist and don't be afraid to stake a position so long as it is open to revision and debate.

*(which means, not merely endorsing gender equality in the abstract, but endorsing the liberation of women from hierarchical and asymmetric gender roles, the recognition that gender is a social construct, and that patriarchal power is pervasive)

[TC]

there are feminists who argue that other feminists can't be feminists because they have the wrong sex to be actual feminists and this is supposed to be a feminist position.

I would ask you to back this up with a quote in context (lets see 2 paragraphs on either side of the offending quote) by any prominent academic feminist or feminist in the real-world movement (not just an internet activist - you can find *any* position represented on the internet by someone with a blog).

Otherwise I would suggest that you may be falling for a stereotypical smear of feminists.

[Slavoj Zizek's Balls]

I would call myself, if asked about my stance on feminism, a 'male' feminist. This is because firstly, I advocate women's rights and secondly because I am part of the gender which oppresses females and thus feel it necessary to distinguish that from female feminists (who just go by the term 'feminist').

I incorporate women's equality into my general ideology anyway, so I'm not out to tell people that I'm a male feminist. I don't make a point of it, so I will gladly cut the identities and go straight into discussing women's equality.

[Ven0m]

ally is an ok word i guess.

[Sasha]

I am a feminist and as such an ally of women.
What's next, only people of colour can call themselves "anti-racists"?
There is such a thing as a dictionary, it gives the established definition of a certain term;

fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈ fe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests —
fem·i·nist \-nist\ noun or adjective — fem·i·nis·tic \ˌfe-mə-ˈ nis-tik\adjective

[PhoenixAsh]

I would ask you to back this up with a quote in context (lets see 2 paragraphs on either side of the offending quote) by any prominent academic feminist or feminist in the real-world movement (not just an internet activist - you can find *any* position represented on the internet by someone with a blog).

Otherwise I would suggest that you may be falling for a stereotypical smear of feminists.

Aside from the fact that I think you completely fail to understand and accurately interpret my post....your reply is problematic for several reasons:

1). Feminism contrary to what you imply here is not a uniform ideological movement as you are extremely well aware. Criticizing some feminists or feminist organizations therefore does not correlate with or translate as "smearing" feminism in general.

2). You incorrectly seem to infer that individual feminists, who are just as prone to argue all kinds of shit theories and make all kinds of shit statements as everybody else, are somehow synonimous with feminism in general. We have of course your thread on Transwomens position within feminists views which defnitely proves there is a wide range of ideas among individual feminists that falsefy this notion.

3). I hardly think you are in a position to dictate here how many words or paragraphs this demanded proof, for something which is totally and completely evident and should be considered general knowledge within the ally vs feminist debate as one of the many positions, should hold. At least not anymore than I can demand and dictate the amount of paragraph proof in which you provide evidence for your claim this position isn't made by some individual feminists. As is evident in this thread.

4). You introduce a completely different group into the debate. Somehow we go from individual feminists who argue a position to "prominent academic feminists". Seriously?

5). Since I am definitely not the first to state this, I am actually wondering to your intentions and your motivation to single me out with your "demands".


All these points of course are besides the fact that you completely failed to understand the post and what it means. I suggest you reread the sentence and think logically what I am actually infering...and then understand how dimwitted your reply, and the demand you place upon me, actually are. So let me explain it to you:

there are feminists who argue that other feminists can't be feminists because they have the wrong sex to be actual feminists (in other words some feminist argue that men can not be feminists) and this is supposed to be a feminist position (because they consider themselves to be feminists).

Logically that means that I personally reject the notion that men can not be feminists and are merely allies. While I do not deny some men are not feminists but consider themselves sympathetic...I think men are perfectly capable of being feminists. It seems you object to this notion which you yourself hold.

Now the statement I made is just as true the one that: some women argue other women are not really women because they were born with the wrong sex and can therefore not be real women.

This would of course be a too easy jab to give you.

[OGLemon]

I believe in the equality of all people. I don't call myself a feminist., but I do support the goals of feminism.

[Red Economist]

I've only recently started to think about issues regarding to sexism and gender so I don't think I would qualify as a 'feminist' because I don't know enough. nevertheless I voted 'feminist' because;
a) men are part of the problem (in terms of patriarchal relations), so they have to be part of the solution too.
b) concepts of masculinity and femininity are not exclusive and some issues that affect women also affect men, but we don't spot it until we question these in-build norms (The one that comes to mind is the social pressures on body-image do not just affect women, but affect men too).

[ProletariatPower]

I hadn't really considered this before, and did call myself an "ally" of feminism, but after reading these arguments I guess men should really call themselves feminists, not because it necessarily implies greater support for the movement or involvement, but simply because I believe it helps leads to the recognition that patriarchy is a problem in society that is not just an "issue for women", but one we should all work to overcome. If you think about it, men referring to themselves as feminists helps overcome the stupid stereotypes that exist of feminists which have been used to undermined the movement.

[TC]

I hadn't really considered this before, and did call myself an "ally" of feminism, but after reading these arguments I guess men should really call themselves feminists, not because it necessarily implies greater support for the movement or involvement, but simply because I believe it helps leads to the recognition that patriarchy is a problem in society that is not just an "issue for women", but one we should all work to overcome. If you think about it, men referring to themselves as feminists helps overcome the stupid stereotypes that exist of feminists which have been used to undermined the movement.

I think this is right.

I think it should also be pointed out that patriarchy isn't a system that uniformly delivers goods to men and detriment to women in the subjective valuation of each group. Rather patriarchy is the system of male domination over women and children. While this privileges men who want to objectify and subordinate women, it is detrimental to the interests of men who want to have relationships of equality with women, who want to take on roles (like primary responsibility for early child care) that are conceived of as women's roles. Likewise while patriarchy subjectively harms women who want roles of equality, an unfortunately large number of women are sufficiently inculcated valuing subordinate roles that they stake an interest in maintaining unequal relationships in which men are more powerful.

To be a feminist is not to want to advance the subjective, abstract interests of women devoid of further context, it is to to seek to advance genuine equality between sexes. This is directly in the interests of men who who prefer a more equal society, just as it is in the interests of women who prefer a more equal society.

[Lily Briscoe]

I won't vote in the poll in keeping with the OP's request since I'm female, but I'll go ahead and answer the question anyway, even though it isn't really the purpose of the thread: I don't use the label "feminist" to describe my views, and whether or not I'd be considered a "feminist" depends on what people mean by it. It's a word that can be used in different ways, sometimes to mean something very specific (i.e. a set of political theories that came out of a particular tradition), and sometimes to mean something much more general. Of course, the kind of "old school Marxist position" has been to define "feminism" in the former sense, which 'Vincent West' has sort of illustrated here:


Neither. The term "feminist" is associated with theories, originating in the New Left, that posit that women are a class and/or that the structural oppression of women transcends class society. The term "ally" presupposes a certain model of struggle that I consider completely incorrect.

I am a socialist, which means I support the liberation of women.

And to a large extent, I'm sympathetic to this (which is why I don't use the label "feminist" personally) and have defended a similar perspective previously. But I think it - along with the often associated refrain that "feminism is bourgeois" - is basically a 'dinosaur' position at this point, and to most 'progressive' (for lack of a better word) people in my generation (20-somethings/millennials), 'feminism' in itself means something much more basic, i.e. being opposed to sexism and in favor of female equality in some sense. And I'm not sure the approach that consists of burying your head in the sand and stubbornly insisting on using the word in the way communists used it during the first half of the twentieth century is really the way to go. Maybe that is 'opportunistic', but I don't really think so; it isn't a question of abandoning principles for expediency (what principles are being abandoned?), but of recognizing that the meaning/usage of words can change.

Ultimately, though, I don't really think the label is very important. What matters is the actual analysis and political positions with regard to the oppression of women and, of course, actual conduct (and I'm sure virtually everyone on here knows or has known at least one or two 'male feminists' who are, at best, emotionally manipulative and, at worst, sexually abusive in their relationships with women).

Sorry if this is just a glorified rambling shit post; it's a day drinking kind of day.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I won't vote in the poll in keeping with the OP's request since I'm female, but I'll go ahead and answer the question anyway, even though it isn't really the purpose of the thread: I don't use the label "feminist" to describe my views, and whether or not I'd be considered a "feminist" depends on what people mean by it. It's a word that can be used in different ways, sometimes to mean something very specific (i.e. a set of political theories that came out of a particular tradition), and sometimes to mean something much more general. Of course, the kind of "old school Marxist position" has been to define "feminism" in the former sense, which 'Vincent West' has sort of illustrated here:

[...]

And to a large extent, I'm sympathetic to this (which is why I don't use the label "feminist" personally) and have defended a similar perspective previously. But I think it - along with the often associated refrain that "feminism is bourgeois" - is basically a 'dinosaur' position at this point, and to most 'progressive' (for lack of a better word) people in my generation (20-somethings/millennials), 'feminism' in itself means something much more basic, i.e. being opposed to sexism and in favor of female equality in some sense. And I'm not sure the approach that consists of burying your head in the sand and stubbornly insisting on using the word in the way communists used it during the first half of the twentieth century is really the way to go. Maybe that is 'opportunistic', but I don't really think so; it isn't a question of abandoning principles for expediency (what principles are being abandoned?), but of recognizing that the meaning/usage of words can change.

Ultimately, though, I don't really think the label is very important. What matters is the actual analysis and political positions with regard to the oppression of women and, of course, actual conduct (and I'm sure virtually everyone on here knows or has known at least one or two 'male feminists' who are, at best, emotionally manipulative and, at worst, sexually abusive in their relationships with women).

Sorry if this is just a glorified rambling shit post; it's a day drinking kind of day.

I'm a twenty-something...

I'm not sure the position that all feminism is bourgeois follows from the more restricted definition of feminism. There is "socialist-feminism" - but this means groups like the FSP, theoreticians like Clara Fraser and so on. Also if we use "feminism" in this broad sense, the term "socialist-feminist" becomes redundant.

I mean, obviously if someone asks me if I'm a feminist or one of those good guy MRA creeps, I'm going to call myself a feminist. But in the Trotskyist milieu we tend to use these terms in a different manner.

[Conscript]

Voted neither, I don't really identify with feminism (or gay rights for that matter), I just attack the reaction to it sometimes.

I also view both as rather bourgeois, the issue of transgenderism reveals such and both are built very much around women and gays reaching the level of a white male property owner, which is stupid. So I don't think very highly of either, particularly gay rights for being little more than a post-modern liberal fad and a means for the liberal West to attack its enemies, like Russia.

[Sinister Intents]

Voted neither, I don't really identify with feminism (or gay rights for that matter), I just attack the reaction to it sometimes.

I also view both as rather bourgeois, the issue of transgenderism reveals such and both are built very much around women and gays reaching the level of a white male property owner, which is stupid. So I don't think very highly of either, particularly gay rights for being little more than a post-modern liberal fad and a means for the liberal West to attack its enemies, like Russia.

Excuse me? So, what about me being transgendered? What's your problem with LGBT issues and feminism? How does this make them like white male property owners? I might be getting very pissed with you. Also nice use of an ad hominem. Can you tell me why that's a logical fallacy?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Voted neither, I don't really identify with feminism (or gay rights for that matter), I just attack the reaction to it sometimes.

I also view both as rather bourgeois, the issue of transgenderism reveals such and both are built very much around women and gays reaching the level of a white male property owner, which is stupid. So I don't think very highly of either, particularly gay rights for being little more than a post-modern liberal fad and a means for the liberal West to attack its enemies, like Russia.

Bye.

[Conscript]

Excuse me? So, what about me being transgendered? What's your problem with LGBT issues and feminism? How does this make them like white male property owners? I might be getting very pissed with you. Also nice use of an ad hominem. Can you tell me why that's a logical fallacy?

I really don't give a shit about your indignation.

The point was the gap in support in society for gay rights vs transgender rights (and how the latter splits feminists) evidences the bourgeois nature of the former. As does slave liberation and the following racism (think Jim Crow) in the past.

As does framing a movement around reaching the level of a white male straight property owner. That is your bar for liberation for everyone but socialist feminists. I don't call that liberation.

[Sinister Intents]

You're not making any sense to my non-neurotypical ass.

[Conscript]

You're not making any sense to my non-neurotypical ass.

It's k, I have more respect for what I left in the toilet bowl this morning than some anarkiddo.

[PhoenixAsh]

I requested a ban since I am local and can't do it myself. But in the intermediate waiting period I am incredibly curious as to what excuse you come up with for your obvious nationalist inspired homophobic and transphobic trolling.

[Sinister Intents]

I really don't give a shit about your indignation.

Blah Blah Blah.


The point was the gap in support in society for gay rights vs transgender rights (and how the latter splits feminists) evidences the bourgeois nature of the former. As does slave liberation and the following racism (think Jim Crow) in the past.

I'm really not seeing what you're getting at here. LGBT rights may have a ton of liberals, but it's not something entirely bourgeois, in fact I've met a few radical feminists in my area who would be insulted to be called liberals or bourgeois, or that they're holding onto bourgeois views.


As does framing a movement around reaching the level of a white male straight property owner. That is your bar for liberation for everyone but socialist feminists. I don't call that liberation.

Do you even know what feminism is?


It's k, I have more respect for what I left in the toilet bowl this morning than some anarkiddo.

Whatever. You're obviously a shitty Marxist.

I don't think you really know much of what you're talking about.

Fuck you too. Can't wait till you're banned you fucker.

[Conscript]

I am incredibly curious how you can label me as homophobic, transphobic, or nationalist.

Not that it matters, admins here are arbitrary and do as they please, I doubt you are interested in my actual thoughts.

I guess I deserve a ban for recognizing the failure that is bourgeois/liberal equality, and conceding only socialist feminists are worth anything.

[Sinister Intents]

What's your stance on homosexuality? Transgendered folk? and nationalism? Also define feminism

I say this because it could be a saving grace for what might have been shitty posting

I jump the gun and I make errors like any other human

[Conscript]

I'm on my phone at work and that'll take too long. I'll PM any admin my views when I get home, so long as I get an assurance I'm not getting banned because of some angsty mod.

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm on my phone at work and that'll take too long. I'll PM any admin my views when I get home, so long as I get an assurance I'm not getting banned because of some angsty mod.

Angsty?

particularly gay rights for being little more than a post-modern liberal fad and a means for the liberal West to attack its enemies, like Russia


You are the one suggesting gay rights, which have been heavily attacked by the bourgeois long before, are merely a liberal fat contextualized in a contemporary and extremely recent time frame of the breakdown of LGBTQ positions in Russia. This of course in obvious denial of the decades of struggle and the continued repression of the LGBTQ community. You link this to some revolutionary standard of some sort of perceived dichotomy between gay and transgender rights and some drivel about aiming to elevate to the same position of bourgeois male straight property owners :rolleyes:

[Conscript]

Angsty?

particularly gay rights for being little more than a post-modern liberal fad and a means for the liberal West to attack its enemies, like Russia


You are the one suggesting gay rights, which have been heavily attacked by the bourgeois long before, are merely a liberal fat contextualized in a contemporary and extremely recent time frame of the breakdown of LGBTQ positions in Russia. This of course in obvious denial of the decades of struggle and the continued repression of the LGBTQ community. You link this to some revolutionary standard of some sort of perceived dichotomy between gay and transgender rights and some drivel about aiming to elevate to the same position of bourgeois male straight property owners :rolleyes:

Nope, try again. You're the one putting word in my mouth about the past history of gay struggle against oppression. I said nothing of it. Talk to me when you're willing to actually discuss, if you're not busy frothing at the mouth.

I feel bad for anyone else that had to suffer your 'judgement' as a mod.

[PhoenixAsh]

Nope, try again. You're the one putting word in my mouth about the past history of gay struggle against oppression. I said nothing of it. Talk to me when you're willing to actually discuss, if you're not busy frothing at the mouth.

If you had read...I much referred to you not stating anything of the sorts. Which is why your position that it is a liberal fad serving the bourgeois against its enemies and mentioning Russia is such an obvious denial of reality. In fact that single argument completely ignores the gay rights struggle in the past decades and writes it off as liberal/bourgeois. This is not something I am making up. This is your argument. I am not however willing to discuss this argument and I see no need to do so.

I am merely answering since you are addressing me.

I also not that for somebody who seems to be unable to clarify their position on their phone you make an awful lot of posts.


I feel bad for anyone else that had to suffer your 'judgement' as a mod.

I feel bad you are a member of this site. Seems we have to make due with it.

[Hrafn]

Conscript should redirect his opinions over to Stormfront, or perhaps an angry MRA tumblr page. There is little space for them here.

[Conscript]

You cannot deny the gay rights movement in the past was not revolutionary, and neither was abolitionism, and that the bar for liberation is measured by becoming like the ruling class (I.E. black freedom meant they could vote in the bourgeois republic and be property owners) You also cannot deny gay rights has significantly more ruling class support than transgender issues.

Gay rights is just in a long line of once oppressed, now enfranchised groups and their struggle being appropriated by forces that declaw them and redirect from the issue of capitalism. Look at civil rights.

If that's bannable well, no wonder this place has been emptied over the past couple years.

[Sinister Intents]

You cannot deny the gay rights movement in the past was not revolutionary, and neither was abolitionism, and that the bar for liberation is measured by becoming like the ruling class (I.E. black freedom meant they could vote in the bourgeois republic and be property owners) You also cannot deny gay rights has significantly more ruling class support than transgender issues.

If that's bannable well, no wonder this place has been emptied over the past couple years.

How about it has nothing to do with becoming bourgeois or becoming more a part of the ruling class?

[Conscript]

How about it has nothing to do with becoming bourgeois or becoming more a part of the ruling class?

Sorry, but to many feminists for example liberation is just the ability for women to have careers and not be domestic slaves. It very much does.

Basically, slaves of slaves want to just be the latter. Yea, that'll smash patriarchy.

[Sinister Intents]

Now you're making a bit more sense, but you're just pointing out that there are a ton of liberals that have little knowledge of these issues. I want revolutionary change and to be able to come out and be myself

[Atsumari]

I do not understand it when people try to monopolize a social issue into their ideology. Social issues usually means that an oppressed group has the same rights as the dominant group. Naturally, some ideologies are better at approaching these issues than others, but such issues tend to be much more broad and compatible.

[Conscript]

Why are there a ton of liberals with little knowledge? Why was there so many conservative homophobes 100 years ago?

Ruling class ideas. Am I supposed to be thankful these cretins finally reached a progressive position? Am I supposed to thank white people for not lynching blacks anymore?

No, I lambast them for calling themselves left and patting their own backs.

[PhoenixAsh]

You cannot deny the gay rights movement in the past was not revolutionary, and neither was abolitionism, and that the bar for liberation is measured by becoming like the ruling class (I.E. black freedom meant they could vote in the bourgeois republic and be property owners) You also cannot deny gay rights has significantly more ruling class support than transgender issues.

Gay rights is just in a long line of once oppressed, now enfranchised groups and their struggle being appropriated by forces that declaw them and redirect from the issue of capitalism. Look at civil rights.

If that's bannable well, no wonder this place has been emptied over the past couple years.

I am not denying that they are not revolutionary.

What I am however disputing is that the gay rights movement is anything other than the fight for the absence of discrimination based on sexual preference and heterosexual hegemony of sexual preference and gender stereotypes and at often times very socially revolutionary. Up unto the point that that cause was taken up by several revolutionary organizations including the Bolsheviks who almost verbatim implemented the rights and arguments the gay rights movement were vocalizing.

[PhoenixAsh]

Why are there a ton of liberals with little knowledge? Why was there so many conservative homophobes 100 years ago?

Ruling class ideas. Am I supposed to be thankful these cretins finally reached a progressive position? Am I supposed to thank white people for not lynching blacks anymore?

No, I lambast them for calling themselves left and patting their own backs.

The socialist movement was riddled with as much homophobia and misogyny.

[RA89]

Sorry, but to many feminists for example liberation is just the ability for women to have careers and not be domestic slaves. It very much does.

Basically, slaves of slaves want to just be the latter. Yea, that'll smash patriarchy.

So what do you suggest they do instead?

Isn't fighting for equal rights etc helping to improve their standard of living regardless of whether they're still on the shit end of capitalism? I don't see how it's not making the best out of a bad situation at the very least.
Similar to poor people voting for a party with policies which benefit them as opposed to refusing to vote in defiance of the political system which would most likely just lead to no revolution but worse conditions for them.

I don't think Conscript should be banned btw, bans should be reserved for outright flaming/spamming otherwise discussion is stifled imo.

[exeexe]

Im an anarchist inst that enough? Also i couldnt call myself feminist because if some woman who i knew was a fascist i would not have a positive influence to her life rofl.

[Sinister Intents]

Im an anarchist inst that enough? Also i couldnt call myself feminist because if some woman who i knew was a fascist i would not have a positive influence to her life rofl.

Being an anarchist doesn't always make one a feminist or a supporter of that, in fact quite a bit of so called socialists aren't feminist at all, or they oppose it as something negative. Also what?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Im an anarchist inst that enough? Also i couldnt call myself feminist because if some woman who i knew was a fascist i would not have a positive influence to her life rofl.

...why would you want to have a positive influence on a fascist's life?

[exeexe]

Being an anarchist doesn't always make one a feminist or a supporter of that, in fact quite a bit of so called socialists aren't feminist at all,?
Ah yes, i had forgot about that. Well women are workers and the working class should be liberated. So there you go. Unless they are enemies of the working class.

[exeexe]

Russian red: Please note there is a "not"

Im an anarchist inst that enough? Also i couldnt call myself feminist because if some woman who i knew was a fascist i would not have a positive influence to her life rofl.

[Sinister Intents]

Ah yes, i had forgot about that. Well women are workers and the working class should be liberated. So there you go. Unless they are enemies of the working class.

Are you high :laugh:? I don't know the way you're saying things makes me think of when I'm baked...

You could be a feminist easily, or you could call yourself an ally. Fascists will always be our enemy...

Outside of this are there fascist feminists?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Russian red: Please note there is a "not"

Well if you want to have a negative experience with them then why not call yourself feminist? Fascism is opposed to feminism

[mindsword]

Humans can only be free if women are empowered, educated and armed with self knowledge against patriarchy and all forms of oppression and cultural deceptions.

feminist.

[4thInter]

I see feminism trying to crete equality from just a women's standpoint. Im all in for women's rights but feminism just aim towards women, not everyone.

[Sinister Intents]

I see feminism trying to crete equality from just a women's standpoint. Im all in for women's rights but feminism just aim towards women, not everyone.

Feminism does in fact aim for equal rights for everyone, at least the feminists that I know

[mindsword]

Outside of this are there fascist feminists?

they propably exist, although i would call them matriarchists rather then feminists..... or are u ref referring to fascism with womens rights included? im not sure. i heard some KKK members are female, and adolf hitlers biggest inspiration was his wife, according to himself. dont believe lies, and dont let people rule over you and take your power. fascism comes in many disquises, shapes and forms. avoid materialist hoes, pick up a book and educate and let the knowledge spread to every corner of the planet.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I see feminism trying to crete equality from just a women's standpoint. Im all in for women's rights but feminism just aim towards women, not everyone.
That's simply not true. While feminism is first and foremost the struggle for women's liberation, the successful liberation of women would liberate everyone from the toxicity of patriarchy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

avoid materialist hoes
"Hoes"? Really?

[Quail]

I see feminism trying to crete equality from just a women's standpoint. Im all in for women's rights but feminism just aim towards women, not everyone.

Nope. Feminism aims to smash patriarchy, which would benefit everyone (though women and queer people would benefit the most).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well women are workers and the working class should be liberated.
There's a difference between being liberated as workers, and being liberated as workers and as women.

[mindsword]

Feminism does in fact aim for equal rights for everyone, at least the feminists that I know
there are many types of feminism tho.... the feminism-without-adjectives one has always been a bit confusing...

its like the difference between "black power" and "white power". one is anti-oppression the other is oppressive. but i guess anything can be taken too far and out of context......

[4thInter]

I really don't give a shit about your indignation.

The point was the gap in support in society for gay rights vs transgender rights (and how the latter splits feminists) evidences the bourgeois nature of the former. As does slave liberation and the following racism (think Jim Crow) in the past.

As does framing a movement around reaching the level of a white male straight property owner. That is your bar for liberation for everyone but socialist feminists. I don't call that liberation.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1465&pictureid=11767

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

4thInter, why are you reposting Conscript's nonsense?

[PhoenixAsh]

they propably exist, although i would call them matriarchists rather then feminists..... or are u ref referring to fascism with womens rights included? im not sure. i heard some KKK members are female, and adolf hitlers biggest inspiration was his wife, according to himself. dont believe lies, and dont let people rule over you and take your power. fascism comes in many disquises, shapes and forms. avoid materialist hoes, pick up a book and educate and let the knowledge spread to every corner of the planet.

Hitlers wife...for 40 hours?
Hoes?

What the fuck am I reading?

[exeexe]

Fascism is opposed to feminism
While i have not read the book i believe my reply is nope
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feminine-Fascism-Britains-Movement-Cultural/dp/1860649181

[Quail]

Totally missed this last night, but don't call women hoes, mindsword. Any more prejudiced language and you will receive an infraction.

[exeexe]

There's a difference between being liberated as workers, and being liberated as workers and as women.
Why?

[RedRev]

I am strongly against patriarchy and all the tentacles that come from it that have infected our mindset. If I'm not a feminist, then what am I?

[Rosa Partizan]

While i have not read the book i believe my reply is nope
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feminine-Fascism-Britains-Movement-Cultural/dp/1860649181

From history we know that there have always been females as kind of a token next to the men in high positions. They were as good as long as they were obedient and willing to have children. They were exploited for fascist purposes, like bring up the next generation of fascists, their husbands having their back etc. In Nazi Germany, there was even a prize for them called Mutterkreuz. Fascist ideology has been reactionary in every possible sense, also when it comes to gender rules, upbringing of the family, roles in the family etc. You've maybe heard about those 25% for the Front National in France. The face of this party is a woman and her agenda has nothing to do with feminism either. She continued her father's work and while there are feminists that find her great because she's Anti-Islam, women's equality is not what this party has in mind, otherwise they would be advocating for women from minorities, LGBTQ and so on. Fight against patriarchy and fight against fascism has in my mind always somehow belonged together, coming from marginalized and exploited groups whose only purpose was to help reach capitalist goals, otherwise they would be useless to the ruling class.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why?
Because women workers are doubly exploited as workers and as women, i.e. by both capitalism and patriarchy (which has existed far, far longer than capitalism).

[Thirsty Crow]

The idea for this thread occurred to me when I talked to a close male friend of mine about feminism some days ago. He was like, why should I call myself ally? I don't like that word, I am certainly a feminist, being aware of the fact that I will never experience structural oppression based on gender. What do you think about these concepts? Where do you see the difference, or is it even the same to you? What do you call yourself? I'll try to make a poll. Female opinions are welcome, too (but obviously not in the poll, please)
I don't think it is that relevant what label one uses to describe his position. It's a matter of personal preference, and sure if I chose to describe my views as feminist and encounter a criticism from women, that the term is best applied for women, I'd stop using it. Because I really don't think labels are important at all.

[Akinesia]

I used to consider myself a feminist until I realised that I'd be pretty appalled if a straight person thought they had the right to call themselves queer just because they agreed with the general intentions of queer liberation. So from quite recently I don't think I'd use the term feminist, I'd probably use 'feminist supporter'. Whatever I use I'd try to make it clear that I don't feel I have the right to contribute to -- or feel any ownership over -- the feminist movement, asides from following the directions of Marxist feminists. I'd hope that straight white male Marxists would take the same attitude towards queer, black, and women's liberation, and that Marxists from rich backgrounds would do much the same for Marxists from "lower-class" (or whatever term you'd use) backgrounds. I don't think this approach marks a capitulation to identity politics -- it just recognises that some of the points made by IP are very worthwhile, and pretty compatible with the Marxist method.

[Thirsty Crow]

I used to consider myself a feminist until I realised that I'd be pretty appalled if a straight person thought they had the right to call themselves queer just because they agreed with the general intentions of queer liberation.

I don't think the two terms are equivalent, insofar as "queer" actually refers to a kind (or kinds) of gender identity, unlike "feminism" which designates a social and political movement.


Whatever I use I'd try to make it clear that I don't feel I have the right to contribute to -- or feel any ownership over -- the feminist movement, asides from following the directions of Marxist feminists.

Isn't this a bit silly?

Of course feelings of "ownership" should, must be discouraged. But "the right to contribute"? Of course any person who wants to contribute - which also inherently excludes these feelings of ownership - should feel free to do so. I think that's basic solidarity.

[Lord Testicles]

I used to consider myself a feminist until I realised that I'd be pretty appalled if a straight person thought they had the right to call themselves queer just because they agreed with the general intentions of queer liberation.

Feminist doesn't equate to woman though, where are people getting this idea?


feminism
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

[Comrade Jacob]

I'm a Marxist-Feminist not a bourgeois-feminist.

[TheFox]

I support gender equality, and I guess that makes me a feminist (Male BTW)
Although I don't like the term feminist. The name implies female superiority and that is the opposite of what people say feminism is about. I'll probably get called sexist for saying that by some of the more easily offended feminists.
:)

[Decolonize The Left]

Damn right I'm a feminist, and a male. I think threads like these are precisely why women find it so difficult to gain a solid foothold for their emancipation: here are a bunch of totally competent and intelligent males arguing over whether or not they ought call themselves a term which refers to nothing other than the equality of their sisters in society. If you think it's at "odds" with your "socialism" then you are overthinking shit way too hard and need to take a look around you.

Patriarchy predates capitalism brah. Women been oppressed long before some white dude thought up the price mechanism.

[Five Year Plan]

Was Engels a revolutionary socialist, or just an ally?

[Rosa Partizan]

Patriarchy predates capitalism brah. Women been oppressed long before some white dude thought up the price mechanism.

so much this, thank you for pointing out. Capitalism "just" institutionalized and structured this oppression.

[Akinesia]

I don't think the two terms are equivalent, insofar as "queer" actually refers to a kind (or kinds) of gender identity, unlike "feminism" which designates a social and political movement.

Isn't this a bit silly?

Of course feelings of "ownership" should, must be discouraged. But "the right to contribute"? Of course any person who wants to contribute - which also inherently excludes these feelings of ownership - should feel free to do so. I think that's basic solidarity.

This is in the context of a movement that still, after a century of development, rarely does more than pay lip-service to the goals and ideas of liberation politics. Could this not be a result of white, straight, cismale supremacy in the formation of our strategies? I recognise your point about contributions, but in practice I don't see it working -- when women-only meetings start allowing a male presence, it changes the dynamic of what's discussed. Positions are diluted and time is wasted explaining 'why we feel this way', which is all too often accompanies by the sadly all too common line "not all men", a token of this idea that by calling yourself a feminist you as a man can avoid a share of any criticism for behaviour that reinforces the patriarchy. I've not witnessed it, but many women have written on this, and it's a worry that they have which makes me personally very uncomfortable with calling myself anything other than a firm supporter of the women's liberation, the feminist, movement.

"Queer" is used rarely in the modern LGBT community, but the uses it does have are in my experience wildly different. First of all there's the umbrella use - this view that all LGBT people are queer. This isn't true - it divorces the term from its radical-political origin, you simply cannot use it to describe the straight-assimilationist behaviours of lots within the community. Gay men who strive to wear suits, to get married, to construct a nuclear family and work until they retire - these men are not queers, even if in the past their sexuality would have forced them to be. "Queer" in the correct (to my mind) usage is a word to describe the movement of anti-assimilationist LGBT people for our own liberation through the further queering of society.

[Thirsty Crow]

so much this, thank you for pointing out. Capitalism "just" institutionalized and structured this oppression.Such gender relations were also institutionalized and structured prior to the development of capitalism (can there even be a haphazard, non-structured male domination?). I think it would be more precise to say that capitalist social relations latched onto and remade, to an extent, this earlier gender relations characterized by male domination.

[Rafiq]

Neither. The term "feminist" is associated with theories, originating in the New Left, that posit that women are a class and/or that the structural oppression of women transcends class society. The term "ally" presupposes a certain model of struggle that I consider completely incorrect.


This is new to me. Could you provide a source? I have never heard this. You could be correct, but I cannot seem to find anything that would suggest this.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

idc what men (incl. me) call themselves, its ultimately not up to us to decide. I can only be an ally/feminist/whatever term used if I behave in a manner appropriate to be called as such by women should they so choose. I mean I can 'help' by actually treating women as human beings and challenging those who don't but its ultimately not my prerogative to decide what role I play in this. or something.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Being a Zionist doesn't make you a Jew, sixdollar.

Naw, it makes you a fundamentalist christian.

[Depardieu]

my solidarity is with radical feminism
not so sure about feminists that welcome men as militants or allies
so, perhaps are marx famously said, i refuse to join any club that would have me as a member
so i consider myself a sympathiser at best and an enemy at worst (given that i am a man)

[Quail]

my solidarity is with radical feminism
not so sure about feminists that welcome men as militants or allies
so, perhaps are marx famously said, i refuse to join any club that would have me as a member
so i consider myself a sympathiser at best and an enemy at worst (given that i am a man)

Since patriarchy affects men negatively too (albeit to a lesser degree) it makes sense for men to support the goals of feminism. Although I think that the struggle against patriarchy should be led by those who suffer gender-based oppression, I think it would be foolish to reject the support of male allies simply because they're men.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

my solidarity is with radical feminism
Which type, trans inclusive or trans exclusive?

[John Nada]

Why can't a guy be both? A feminist ally. I say I'm a feminist. The problems I've had isn't that I, as a male, am trying to take it from women, but that they(male and female) consider feminism effeminate for men, and(paradoxically) masculine for women. :confused: Fucking patriarchy.

[Bala Perdida]

I'm not sure if I can call myself a feminist. I feel like that would be taking to much credit for not doing anything. Sure I raise some awareness, but I never suffered the way my sisters suffer.
I do say that I have a feminist view of situations. Feminism has become a part of my daily life, as I reject the demeaning elements of culture. Also the raising awareness and what not.
I personally don't think it's bad if a guy calls himself a feminist. I would just feel weird calling myself a feminist. I don't think people would respond well to it, but I'm not afraid to advocate for feminism.

[TC]

Aside from the fact that I think you completely fail to understand and accurately interpret my post....your reply is problematic for several reasons:

1). Feminism contrary to what you imply here is not a uniform ideological movement as you are extremely well aware.

No, but neither is it a meaningless term or a term with several equally correct meanings.

Like nearly all politically loaded ideological terms it has meaning grounded in history and its meaning is contested.

I do not take the position of an ahistorical neutral observer. Instead, I like anyone discussing ideas, actively engage in contesting and defining meaning. I am happy to offer explanations for why my preferred meanings should be adopted, which is I think better than insisting that a plurality of meanings should be simultaneously accepted as a dogma without further explanation. When people assert mutually exclusive meanings and positions for marxism or anarchism or socialism or communism, which happens all the time here, there seems to be less dismissal of it



5). Since I am definitely not the first to state this, I am actually wondering to your intentions and your motivation to single me out with your "demands".


I reply to things that seem worth replying to given my time and energy level and preferences. I really don't keep track of who I'm reply to. There are a lot of people on revleft. You said in another thread that we've had lots of disagreements in the past, but to be completely honest I have no idea what those were and really have no recollection of it. There are very very few remaining revleft members who I really have any memory of their posts from more than a year ago.

If I reply to your posts more often then I reply to others posts you should take it as a complement that I consider your posts more interesting than others. I presume that people appreciate when their posts are replied to (I do, provided its respectful and not overly combative).


there are feminists who argue that other feminists can't be feminists because they have the wrong sex to be actual feminists (in other words some feminist argue that men can not be feminists) and this is supposed to be a feminist position (because they consider themselves to be feminists).[/I]

I would direct you here to your comment in the other thread: self-identification as a feminist is not determinative of whether or not someone is a feminist.

In fact, such a position that you describe is *internally contradictory*

A. If a feminist position is defined as a position argued by a feminist
B. And a feminist is defined as a person who considers themselves to be a feminist
C. And some men consider themselves feminists and argue that they are feminists

Then it cannot be that it is a feminist position that men cannot be feminists. If self-identification determines who is a feminist, then some men must be feminists. If self-identification does not determine who is a feminist and what is a feminist position, then the notion that men can't be feminists is not demonstrated to be a feminist position simply because it is advanced by self-described feminists.

[Rosa Partizan]

oh dude, TC, come back. I know the mansplaining here can be insufferable from time to time.

Anyway:


I’m sorry but whose “team” are we talking about here? Because I thought the “team” was women and the feminist movement. Which men are welcome to support but not to lead or dictate. If men wish to be allies in our movement they need to listen and learn from feminists, not explain to them how we are “doing it wrong” and then paint themselves as victims when someone dares to critique their behaviour or simply asks you to understand and acknowledge the connections between images that sexualize and objectify women and male entitlement and violence against women.
I’m fucking sick of man after man after man claiming to be “on our side” and to be “helping women,” but then refusing to actually listen to women, expecting cookies and pats on the head for being “good men,” then striking back when they don’t receive what they believe they are entitled to as self-proclaimed allies. This is precisely why men cannot be leaders in this movement. They can (and should) certainly support feminism and work against patriarchy and male violence, but they can’t do this without or outside of the feminist movement.


http://feministcurrent.com/10699/male-allies-still-a-problem/

[Palmares]

In the times I was... lack of a better term, ultra-PC (self-described), I was quite precise about using the term "pro-feminist" or "(pro)-feminist". Both related groups I have been involved with in the past, were similarly referred to as "pro-feminist mens groups".

Nowadays I'm not as picky about words in general. However, out of respect of my comrades or similar, I would adopt the terms that best show my solidarity in a given context.

[Counterculturalist]

I have an alternative position:
For men to see women as fully equal persons - they should be just as devoted to achieving the full liberation and equality of women as they would be for men. This doesn't mean being an ally to feminisms it means being a feminist. To be an ally means to be in some way an adjunct or supporter, rather than being part of the movement oneself. Taking that secondary role is selling sex equality short.


That's how I've always seen it too.

Saying things like "sure, I support women's liberation, but I'm not a feminist" seems like a half-assed position to take, especially for a man. We might as well say "women's concerns are of no importance," or "women just don't understand how important my concerns are."

Whatever you think the cause of women's oppression is, the idea that it will magically disappear "after the revolution" all by itself is foolish. Especially when many so-called revolutionaries already dismiss or marginalize women's voices. If these non-feminist leftists are an example of what people will be like in a post-revolutionary society, then it's obvious that patriarchy needs addressing before, during and after the revolution.

[consuming negativity]

ideologically, we can be feminists, but in practice, what form that takes can offer differ substantially

not just in terms of not practicing what you preach, but also in terms of not even being sure about one thing or another, which is definitely a problem from time to time for anyone

i'm not sure that many people actually do measure up to what feminists would consider feminist in practice. for men, given our disadvantageous position (in the context of understanding feminism) compared to women, it seems almost impossible that very many of us would ever be more than allies. myself included.

still, the term "ally" reeks of liberalism and "woooh! yeah, allies are great!".

i don't really refer to myself as an ally. i am a feminist and this is a feminist board. but generally speaking, most women are terrible at feminism, let alone men.

[Rosa Partizan]

and this is a feminist board.

this is debatable, to express it politely.

[Quail]

It's a communist board and since we can't have a free and equal society which still oppresses people on the basis of gender, it is a feminist board. Whether or not the self-proclaimed communists who post here express feminist views is another story, but I think the rules explicitly state what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to sexism, etc.

[Celtic_0ne]

I am an advocate of socialist feminism only, because Luxemburg, Zetkin, and Goldman are much better than that shit Sarkeesian.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Im not familiar with sarkeesian, what about their politics don't you support? It seems problematic to only support feminism in the context of class struggle

[Rosa Partizan]

I am an advocate of socialist feminism only, because Luxemburg, Zetkin, and Goldman are much better than that shit Sarkeesian.

on which level do you compare them? I mean, isn't that a bit like "muhammed ali is a better athlete than pete sampras"? at least sarkeesian is no libfem.

[Celtic_0ne]

Im not familiar with sarkeesian, what about their politics don't you support? It seems problematic to only support feminism in the context of class struggle
I am unhappy with their attempts at limiting freedom of expression, and in their general culture, also I believe that capitalism is the root of all problems and overthrowing capitalism can solve the patriarchy all on its own.

[Rosa Partizan]

I am unhappy with their attempts at limiting freedom of expression, and in their general culture, also I believe that capitalism is the root of all problems and overthrowing capitalism can solve the patriarchy all on its own.

wtf are you even talking about? is it gamergate?

[Lord Testicles]

I am an advocate of socialist feminism only, because Luxemburg, Zetkin, and Goldman are much better than that shit Sarkeesian.

Let's remember that the only reason people don't like Sarkeesian is because she said some things about video games that video gamers didn't want to hear.


wtf are you even talking about? is it gamergate?

If it's not, it's related. As far as I'm aware Anita Sarkeesian has never attempted to "limit freedom of expression" but that won't stop some people living in fear that she's trying to take away their toys.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

So i Googled her and I see she involved with the gamergate thing which I admittedly didn't really pay attention to. Has she actually called for censorship of some kind or is she just pointing out instances of sexism? The actual end of patriarchy might not come until after capitalism, but there are obviously short term improvements that can be made now. Are you against any attempts to improve the position of women in the context of capitalism ?

[Celtic_0ne]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I mean, I disagree that you have the 'right' to use that word, but you still haven't said what your problem with this lady is

[Celtic_0ne]

I mean, I disagree that you have the 'right' to use that word, but you still haven't said what your problem with this lady is
to be honest i havent actually formulated a complete reason, but maybe its because i dont like her approach or attitude or something.

[Rosa Partizan]

to be honest i havent actually formulated a complete reason, but maybe its because i dont like her approach or attitude or something.

well, that summarizes your whole line of argument.

[Lord Testicles]

Has she actually called for censorship of some kind or is she just pointing out instances of sexism?

All she did was start a kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a youtube show she was making called "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" and the internet went absolutely batshit.

She talks about her experience in a TEDTalks:

GZAxwsg9J9Q

[Counterculturalist]

She has never called for censorship, and her insights about sexism in mainstream media are so self-evident that only the most virulent of misogynists could possibly find them controversial. The fact that she is one of the most hated people online because of this kind of confirms why feminism is important.

[cflag]

As for Anita Sarkeesian -- If people would just stop talking about her (and indeed people like her) it would be a victory for gender equality. She gives the very idea a sour taste for many people.

Gamergate is \not\ a feminism issue. It is an issue highlighting how much of a shit-show games journalism really is. Yes, Zoe happened to be a women, but that is not the focal point of the issue.

I dislike terming myself as a feminist, ally, or whatever other label you choose. Getting caught up in names and terms is exactly what happened to Tumblr, and we can all see how much quality reform is stemming from there. I just try to be a good person, with no respect to gender, sexuality, or anything like that.

Becoming overly-zealous as many of these 'SJW's tend to be, only causes more problems than it solves.

[consuming negativity]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

just because you can doesn't mean you should...

[Quail]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

I'm the feminist freedom of expression police, and I'm giving you a verbal warning for this post.

1. Don't say that people can "go kill themselves" on this board.
2. If you want to use the word "retarded" as a slur, go right on ahead. But just know that anyone who does so is actively harming disabled people, so you'd be a complete arsehole and not to mention banned from Revleft pretty quickly.

[Counterculturalist]

Gamergate is \not\ a feminism issue. It is an issue highlighting how much of a shit-show games journalism really is. Yes, Zoe happened to be a women, but that is not the focal point of the issue.


Nothing to do with feminism whatsoever? I guess it's a coincidence that every gamergate-endorsed article complains about women and/or feminism and/or political correctness / "cultural Marxism?" And it also must be a coincidence that every proponent of gamergate is affiliated with the MRA movement? And that gamergate's idea of criticizing poor journalism is to threaten to rape and murder the aforementioned journalists, all of whom are, coincidentally, women?

[cflag]

Nothing to do with feminism whatsoever? I guess it's a coincidence that every gamergate-endorsed article complains about women and/or feminism and/or political correctness / "cultural Marxism?" And it also must be a coincidence that every proponent of gamergate is affiliated with the MRA movement? And that gamergate's idea of criticizing poor journalism is to threaten to rape and murder the aforementioned journalists, all of whom are, coincidentally, women?
Whether people choose to use Gamergate as a scapegoat for the real problem is their own prerogative. The reason GG is now seen as a women's/feminism issue is because people changed discussion to fit their agenda (as is done with every major controversy).

Regardless, I don't give a shit about games journalism.
I don't give a shit about the SJW's defending those involved (guilty or not).
I don't give a shit about the MRA's who are being demonized for 'hating the evil women'.

[Lily Briscoe]

On the actual topic of this thread (I think I already posted in here a million years ago, but am too lazy to go back and read what I said), is it really important whether a dude adopts the label 'feminist' or 'ally' or whatever? Isn't it more important what their actual views are and how they treat women? It seems like a pretty superficial 'issue'.

I also really dislike that Megan Murphy article Rosa posted on the previous page. 'Feminism' is a pretty broad thing at this point and there are, obviously, big disagreements among different feminists. The thrust of it seemed to be two-fold: 1) that feminist men (or "male allies", whatever) have a responsibility to not dominate discussions and instead actually listen to women's views - and I would definitely agree with this part - and 2) that male feminists/"allies" have a responsibility to agree with Megan Murphy and acknowledge the validity of her ass-backwards analysis of the relationship between pornography and violence against women.

Of course, what happens when there are two feminist women who disagree on the subject, and a male "ally", in the same room? Does the guy feign agreement with the views of whichever feminist he happens to be talking to at the time in order to be a "good ally"? Because I for one would find that patronizing as hell.

[RedKobra]

I do call myself a Feminist. I'm male. Its not something I'm especially well read in but it feels right to call myself a feminist as I do believe in smashing patriarchy and I do believe in locking arms and fighting side by side with other human beings regardless of gender, skin colour or sexuality.

[Collective Reasons]

These days, I use "feminist." I have used "pro-feminist" in the past, but it seems to me that part of the politics of self-labeling at this stage has to do with how broad or narrow we consider feminism to be. At a time, a decade or two back, when a comparatively wide variety of feminisms seemed more visible, there didn't seem to be any particularly compelling case for or against simply identifying as a male feminist. But the more I have been confronted by reductive treatments of feminism, often simply reducing everything to a caricature of a particular sort of radfem, and the more polarized the debate about feminism's value has become in many circles, the more useful it has seemed to be bold with the label.

[bcbm]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

As for Anita Sarkeesian -- If people would just stop talking about her (and indeed people like her) it would be a victory for gender equality. She gives the very idea a sour taste for many people.

Gamergate is \not\ a feminism issue. It is an issue highlighting how much of a shit-show games journalism really is. Yes, Zoe happened to be a women, but that is not the focal point of the issue.

I dislike terming myself as a feminist, ally, or whatever other label you choose. Getting caught up in names and terms is exactly what happened to Tumblr, and we can all see how much quality reform is stemming from there. I just try to be a good person, with no respect to gender, sexuality, or anything like that.

Becoming overly-zealous as many of these 'SJW's tend to be, only causes more problems than it solves.

is there a sewer overflowing in to here or something?

[Lily Briscoe]

I like being one of those people who still has absolutely no idea wtf 'gamergate' even is; it almost makes me feel like a normal human being.

[blake 3:17]

male feminists are rapists, ally shit is privilege politics garbage language

I believe in equal rights for women, pay equity legislation, free abortion on demand, universal and free day care and creches

[Bala Perdida]

I'll let the female feminists do the talking. Just need to differentiate between the radical and liberal. That seems pretty easy. Also educating people on what feminism actually is and pointing out why saying 'women just hate eachother' doesn't illegitimize it.

[Asero]

I agree with synthesis on his definition of feminism. I largely agree with socialist feminism (I don't like liberal feminism.), but I'm not really interested in it, in the sense of personal interest; you won't find me at rallies, meetings, etc. I don't like the term "ally," though. The term just doesn't really ring to me. I personally like feminist "fellow traveler" better.

[Quail]

I agree with synthesis on his definition of feminism. I largely agree with socialist feminism (I don't like liberal feminism.), but I'm not really interested, in the sense of finding it personally interesting, in it; you won't find me at rallies, meetings, etc. I don't like the term "ally," though. The term just doesn't really ring to me. I personally like calling myself a feminist "fellow traveler."

What's the purpose in having feminist ideas in theory if you don't put them into practice? It's all well and good to agree with women's liberation, but if you're not actually doing anything about it then what use are you to women and other people who suffer under patriarchy?

Not trying to single you out personally, but I don't think that being for something in the abstract is good enough. Actions speak louder than words, etc.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am an advocate of socialist feminism only, because Luxemburg, Zetkin, and Goldman are much better than that shit Sarkeesian.

None of the three women you cite considered themselves a "socialist feminist". Socialist feminism is a very specific current, the most notable exponent (as far as I'm aware, maybe this is just my SL bias talking) being Clara Fraser of the FSP.

Sarkeesian is a cultural critic who said some pretty basic things about the way women are represented in many video games, and infuriated a legion of fedora-wearers.


Gamergate is \not\ a feminism issue. It is an issue highlighting how much of a shit-show games journalism really is. Yes, Zoe happened to be a women, but that is not the focal point of the issue.

Of course it's the focal point, why else would people focus on her? I mean, games journalism has been a sham for quite some time, but I don't recall anyone reacting with this sort of virulence when people were being fired for not giving perfect scores to subpar games like Kane&Lynch. But one insinuation of "evil woman sleeping with someone for perfect scores" and you get people bringing out the pitchforks.

If anything, "Gamergate" has made it more difficult for anyone sane to talk about games journalism, and it has been used by all sorts of "games are not for gamers anymore" weirdoes to completely insulate themselves from criticism. But that's really a minor point when people are getting death and rape threats.

[newdayrising]

I've been stumbling on this discussion a lot lately. It amazes me how much emphasis and energy people are putting on words and language instead of the actual political meaning of such words.
Basically, what I see locally is that two men can have exactly the same politics, but if one calls himself a feminist he's bad and trying to "protagonize" women's struggles, while the other is ok. Years ago what people called themselves wasn't that important. Some people/groups seem to disapprove of men speaking of anything relating to women at all.
It's symptomatic of this whole identity politics/privilege theory thing and its huge emphasis on words penetrating my neck of the woods here.
When I was younger I used to call myself a feminist as a simple way to say I, despite being a man, believed the liberation of women should be more addressed. Later on I stopped saying for theoretical reasons similar to what some people mentioned in this thread.
I'm glad I did, because "feminist men" are being targeted a lot lately. They seem to be a big problem for some groups. I don't really understand the whole thing, maybe they have a point, but I don't really see how focusing on what men call themselves can be so important.

[Lord Testicles]

I like being one of those people who still has absolutely no idea wtf 'gamergate' even is; it almost makes me feel like a normal human being.

A gamergate is a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate)

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think it's an identity thing, although the empty 'ally' title might be I guess. A lot of men have treated feminism very cynically, ranging from using it to try to get laid, using it to abuse people, and the more mundane act of doing and saying stupid shit that contradicts what you supposedly stand for. It's not hard to trace where the suspicion comes from. Actions speak louder than words, for instance I find that the people who put the most effort into making the people around them know that they are "a good friend" or "nice" or "responsible" tend more often than not to be the opposite of these qualities.

[Invader Zim]

I say fair play to Anita, her videos are shit and she doesn't know what she is talking about. But the people who made her are disgusting trolls, meanwhile the people who actually gave her money diserved to be fleeced. She fucked both sides over, and that diserves tipping one's hat to.

[Lily Briscoe]

A gamergate is a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate)

At least this is somewhat interesting to read about.

[Counterculturalist]

Before we male feminists get too defensive about being regarded with suspicion, we'd do well to try to understand why this happens.

As a man, it's easy for me to assume good faith on the part of fellow activists, because the stakes aren't particularly high. If a male feminist turns out to be a predatory asshole, it literally has no effect on me, besides the embarrassment of having associated with this person. Women don't have that luxury.

It has been said before, but part of the male feminist's task should be to listen and learn from women who are affected by male supremacy.

The problem of some feminists being wary of overzealous men is a miniscule one in comparison to the structural misogyny that women still face everyday.

[blake 3:17]

Before we male feminists get too defensive about being regarded with suspicion, we'd do well to try to understand why this happens.

As a man, it's easy for me to assume good faith on the part of fellow activists, because the stakes aren't particularly high. If a male feminist turns out to be a predatory asshole, it literally has no effect on me, besides the embarrassment of having associated with this person. Women don't have that luxury.

It has been said before, but part of the male feminist's task should be to listen and learn from women who are affected by male supremacy.

The problem of some feminists being wary of overzealous men is a miniscule one in comparison to the structural misogyny that women still face everyday.

This is where the emptiness and nihilism of this kind of politics comes in. Maybe. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I work in a 95% female labour work force. My co-workers are 95% women and all of my bosses have been women. Do I listen to them equally? Do I treat girls better than boys?

I have respect for certain rad fem politics -- they were crucial in building shelter system for abused women when socialist and liberal feminists were focussed on policy and economic issues.

When people pander to me because of a "weakness" or an oppression or a problem, I consider that an insult. I assume that for others.

[Counterculturalist]

When people pander to me because of a "weakness" or an oppression or a problem, I consider that an insult. I assume that for others.

I dunno, am I pandering?

I don'tmean that men should shut up and bite their tongue 100% of the time out of respect for the "fairer sex.".

What I'm getting at is that I think it's silly for men to make a big deal about being marginalized within the struggle for women's rights. When that happens, there's a tendency for the discussion to suddenly revolve around how men feel shut out from women's issues instead of revolving around the issues themselves.

As for identity politics in general, I don't care for them in isolation.

[#FF0000]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

you should take a break from the internet for awhile dude

[Rafiq]

Neither. The term "feminist" is associated with theories, originating in the New Left, that posit that women are a class and/or that the structural oppression of women transcends class society. The term "ally" presupposes a certain model of struggle that I consider completely incorrect.


Such is the language of an impotent ability to confront today's vile reaction against 'feminism', and at worst guising an inherent pathological sympathy with this reaction. It has been said before: With regard to any focal point of struggle in the 21st century, Leftists can justify almost any position with the careful, intricate employment of hollow 20th century phraseology. Words themselves do not constitute a genuine expression of one's position, but the intricate structure of such words within approximation to the object: that you consider a struggle "incorrect" only invalidates its existence within the parameters if your oh-so very comfortable mind.

The fact of the matter is that political phenomena are unbound to their "initial" self identification: It doesn't matter what the theoretical origins of feminism are, because feminism is not a theory, it is today a general tendency as an organic expression of women's sexual oppression. Make no mistake - the Left is dead - feminism's popularity is not sustained by a conscious objection to the true nature of power but by real experiences endured by women being given a (even if petty) theoretical meaning. This already makes feminism as a general tendency, with all of its flaws and pettiness, infinitely more powerful than the phrase-mongering self righteousness of just about every Left fringe cult that has managed to worm its way into the 21st century. The point is simple: There is a present dichotomy of struggle - between feminism and what can only be understood as reaction. By merely perceiving this, all are forced to take a side: taking a side with an intricate employment of words to justify it is still taking a side. Now of course, defending feminism comes with further qualifications: no one claims that feminists are immune to criticism but that this should not hinder an identification with the general struggle. What we ought to do is recognize that such a struggle indeed does have a logical conclusion that ends with Socialism - and this is precisely what we ought to emphasize - that sexual emancipation is impossible within the existing order.

We ought to fervently support even bourgeois feminists against reaction: Ultimately, this abstract "freedom" Communism will magically assure women is precisely just an abstraction without a real existing movement. The real existing movement does not derive with incontextual counter-assertions or cowardly abstinence from the problems of the 21st century: There is this mythical idea that the moment of truth and pureness, free from the corruption of the modern world is coming and we all ought to simply wait. In this moment, all of those who festered in the 'corruption' of 'bourgeois society' will be proven wrong all along. Frankly, this day will never come. If we are talking about the possibility of a new Communism, we ought to first and foremost recognize that Communism internalizes the achievements of bourgeois society as a pre-condition of its triumph over bourgeois society. We can only criticize feminism from feminism. All of this ignores, ultimately, the fact that 'feminism' as such hasn't risen in popularity affirmatively, the only thing which has risen is the poisonous reaction to it! Which makes such contemptible, cowardly acts of disassociation even more blood boiling - the axiom of controversy has its basis in the barbarous hordes of reaction, not the power of feminists. In other words, the minor achievements of 20th century feminism and sexual freedom are and have been under assault by ideological forces of degeneracy. THIS is where feminism derives its prominence - not some dismissal of the class struggle but a front of defense of the achievements in women's equality which has led to a further demand for its elaboration.

To frame the struggle for women's sexual freedom as something pertaining to females on a personal level, in other words, which attempts to create dichotomy based in a pre-conceived biological identity is already playing a very dangerous game. 'Feminism' ultimately can only be an opposition, in whichever magnitude of intensity, to gender relations as they exist within our society. Merely being a women (or any identity for that matter) is not qualifications for knowing anything - without theoretical foundations, experiences of oppression are in effect always meaningless. Oppression necessarily relies on the continual perpetuation of consent by the oppressed - which is why there are some women involved with MRA's or who harbor disgustingly reactionary views (who will respond by saying "Well I'm a woman! What do you have to say to that!") - it has nothing to do with being a "women" as such but dealing with an archetype of gender of which women conform. It is entirely possible in an abstract scenario that a group which struggles for women's emancipation is entirely composed of men wherein an opposition is composed of women. Because it doesn't concern women solely - it concerns all relations of power as they exist - our system doesn't concern itself with biology but archetypes (look at US prisons where these reflective mini-societies have to feminize men to retain a semblance of order and sanity).

Suspicion towards "male feminists" is warranted because the nature of the struggle tends to lean towards identity politics anyway, with males being conscious about this too. What is necessary is not sexual exclusion (Which is already dependent on the background of a male-dominated society - 'excluding' men in principle is stupid in that it concedes that males are biologically predisposed to rape and so on) but a re-evaluation of the character of the movement as something which genuinely concerns a wider struggle against the existing order. Of course if feminism is conceived as merely being identified with women, than "benevolent" men who see themselves as "helping women" personally need to not only deserve suspicion but outright opposition and condemnation. The reason for this is simple: People in general don't and should not "care" about "women" on such a personal level - they don't know most women (or humans for that matter) in the world and certainly are not equipped with empathizing with them in such a way. Likewise, philistine intellectuals who talk about trying to "gain experiences" from the working class and descend from their "ivory towers" should be mercilessly opposed by the working people and met with complete suspicion - such people meet their "objects" of subjective fulfillment as just that, condescendingly and from a perceived position of power.

[Hrafn]

Why haven't more people in this thread been banned yet?

[RedKobra]

i dont give a fuck about gamergate, those people can go kill themselves. i am a 4chan user and have an absolute hatred of tumblr and its happy feely atmosphere. not to mention if i want to use the word retarded, for example, in a context other than refering to the mentally handicapped i should damn be able to.

No. You shouldn't. Don't be such a disrespectful idiot. Don't even call a mentally handicapped person "retarded". Its a rank word that only hateful bastards use.

[Slavic]

No. You shouldn't. Don't be such a disrespectful idiot. Don't even call a mentally handicapped person "retarded". Its a rank word that only hateful bastards use.

I never understand this place.

A poster who has opinions that differ greatly from the general trend of the forum will always have his personal insults called out which usually leads to said poster being banned.

But

Posters which share opinions that are mainstream on this forum are free to be vile and make all the personal insults that their little hearts content. Hell some times mods get in on the shit talk and personal insults.

Let alone the guy calling out someone for using retard, is in turn calling him a bastard, another loaded obscenity, yet we decided to pick and choose which obscenity is fine and which one is ban-worthy

shesh

[#FF0000]

Let alone the guy calling out someone for using retard, is in turn calling him a bastard, another loaded obscenity, yet we decided to pick and choose which obscenity is fine and which one is ban-worthy

shesh

We should enforce the rules more evenly but there's certainly an idiot between someone a regular old insult and a slur.

[RedKobra]

I never understand this place.

A poster who has opinions that differ greatly from the general trend of the forum will always have his personal insults called out which usually leads to said poster being banned.

But

Posters which share opinions that are mainstream on this forum are free to be vile and make all the personal insults that their little hearts content. Hell some times mods get in on the shit talk and personal insults.

Let alone the guy calling out someone for using retard, is in turn calling him a bastard, another loaded obscenity, yet we decided to pick and choose which obscenity is fine and which one is ban-worthy

shesh

If my use of the antiquated insult "bastard" offended anyone then I apologise. Sentiments like those of the poster I was responding to make me very angry. "Retard" is a hateful and all too contemporary insult.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I never understand this place.

A poster who has opinions that differ greatly from the general trend of the forum will always have his personal insults called out which usually leads to said poster being banned.

But

Posters which share opinions that are mainstream on this forum are free to be vile and make all the personal insults that their little hearts content. Hell some times mods get in on the shit talk and personal insults.

Let alone the guy calling out someone for using retard, is in turn calling him a bastard, another loaded obscenity, yet we decided to pick and choose which obscenity is fine and which one is ban-worthy

shesh

I kind of agree, but I think everyone gets called out eventually like what you're doing in this post. I used to use the word sociopath a lot as an insult until someone here pointed out that it was unfair to do so. I have never met a sociopath in real life (well i probably have), so I had just never considered it.

The issue of flaming in general is a little more irritating, especially in this instance. The one guy had already admitted that he had no rational basis for holding his opinions, it's not like that happens a whole lot. But everyone was really anxious to point out what an idiot he was, as if the rest of us didn't pick up on it, and so now he'll probably dig in on that position even deeper just to spite what he probably considers an attack on 'freedom of expression' or some such nonsense. Oh well.