All women feminist groups.

[Module]

Should feminist groups be restricted to all female members? Why/why not?

[apathy maybe]

It depends on the aim of the group. If the aim of the group is to provide solidarity for women who have problems (of a social type), then yes. If the aim of the group is to further the cause for equality between all genders, then no.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think this is a rather silly question - of course feminist groups in general should not be restricted to women. That's akin to suggesting all anti-racist groups should be made up entirely of non-whites - and I think history has shown that white people can play valuable, though necessarily secondary, roles in anti-racist struggles. A better question would be whether or not some, or specific, feminist groups should include only female members (though, arguably, defining that more specifically can be problematic). I would say that this is definately the case; again looking to parallels in anti-racist struggle, organizations of exclusively people of colour have been an important tool for oppressed people to empower themselves.

[LoneRed]

No they shouldnt, but here and i suspect other places, the principles and "actions" of these feminist groups make it less likely for men to join. The one here is having a period party, Most of what they do is similar, and men are excluded by the nature of what they do

[rouchambeau]

It depends. I would like to see all sexes involved in all feminist groups, but when men have too much control over a group I see no problem with women setting up their own groups.

[RedCommieBear]

Most of the time, men should not be restricted from feminist groups. Of course, women should probably hold most or all of the leadership in the group.

Edit: Several Grammar mistakes.

[Module]

Well yes, this was just from an argument I was having with a freundling of mine. The argument was that men in feminist groups tended to grow to dominate them. I'm not so sure this would be entirely true, but however I have never been involved in the feminist movement...I'm not so sure this is the fault of the male gender, obviously, and I think that it would probably only be a lack of comfort between the two genders.. esp. from the female perspective, as men are seen as the problem.. (and are indirectly, of course :mellow: ) and making sure both men and women understood and were comfortable with eachother was the most important thing.
My opinion was that all problems trying to be avoided by restricting groups to all-female would be eventually encountered anyway, as of course sexual opression is a problem involving both sexes, and to say that it would be a 'building block', as was said, towards the final goal of women's liberation... well, it seems like an unnecessary condition of it.
So yes..the argument was that women needed to organise themselves away from a male dominated society, and since all men apparently are subconsciously sexist involving them too much would eventually cause them to dominate the group.. and ruin the point of it.
I figured that what seems easier at the time, avoiding one half of the problem that is the mentality of men wouldn't technically be the best thing to do in the long run, and would be an unnecessary condition, as yes, 'building blocks'... good, yes, but there's no reason why two problems can't be solved simultaneously... and I think that these are two problems that definately should be.
Well that was just me stating my 'why' and such.
I suppose his argument I saw as somewhat valid, and I can understand how he would feel the way he does, so I was curious of other's opinions.
Please explain why if you disagree with anything I've said.. but then.. myes.
=o

[emma_goldman]

I think so. To have the ability to opress is opression in itself. Men need to learn how not to opress women. And it's not a one way street either. Women opress men too.

[Module]

Oh oh oh, by the way, I meant feminist groups as in any given feminist group, not every one as a whole. :unsure:

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 11:31 pm
The argument was that men in feminist groups tended to grow to dominate them. I'm not so sure this would be entirely true, but however I have never been involved in the feminist movement...I'm not so sure this is the fault of the male gender, obviously, and I think that it would probably only be a lack of comfort between the two genders..
Does it matter whose fault it is? I'd say it's a product of men being dominant in society generally, which is a product of the rise of class society being tied up with the patriarchal family.
It only matters: is it true? And yes, in most mixed-gender groups, most of the leaders will be men. That's not always true in feminist groups - NOW includes some men, for example, but is mostly led by women. 'Course NOW is very liberal, for many reasons but that might be one of 'em.

But anyway, it can be an issue. Especially when the modern feminist movement was really coming up in the 70s; it might be less of a problem in the younger generation. Due to the changes produced by the feminist movement, partly.


I figured that what seems easier at the time, avoiding one half of the problem that is the mentality of men wouldn't technically be the best thing to do in the long run, and would be an unnecessary condition, as yes, 'building blocks'... good, yes, but there's no reason why two problems can't be solved simultaneously... and I think that these are two problems that definately should be.
Well that was just me stating my 'why' and such.

Excuse me, you can't fix society as a precondition to setting up an organization that is trying to fix society!

There's a reason not to try to solve everything "simultaneously" - first you have to set up an organization capable of fighting to solve these problems. And often the people most determined to throroughly address the problems of women's oppression - will be women.

Not always or for every individual. But often.

So in some cases it may make sense to set up women-only groups.

On the other hand, if a group is focusing on a single issue, like abortion, it probably makes sense to admit anyone wanting to work on that issue. Probably most abortion-rights groups are mixed-gender, and productively so.

[YSR]

X: "There can be no black/white solidarity until there is black/black solidarity." Or a close paraphrase thereof.

Something to consider, changing the context a wee bit.

Apathy hits the best point in this thread.