Feminists... Male?

[9]

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

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

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

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

Us MtF's on the otherhand...

[Zeus the Moose]

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

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

[Invincible Summer]

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

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

[BeerShaman]

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

Well... That's what I want...

[Queercommie Girl]

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

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

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

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

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

[Achara]

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

[Red Poplar]

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

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

[BeerShaman]

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

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

Well yes, but I don't know of any woman beating her husbnad. Then again, that was also one of my matters... I should have typed it before. Shouldn't we better call it gender equalization? Maybe feminism should be called the female supporting of it, which has as a central role the protection of women.

[Queercommie Girl]

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

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

[Queercommie Girl]

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

What do you mean?

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

[Red Poplar]

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

[BeerShaman]

What do you mean?

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

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

[Queercommie Girl]

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

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

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

[BeerShaman]

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

[Queercommie Girl]

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

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

[BeerShaman]

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

Ok I understand. I think just that the term gender equalization is more accurate...

[meow]

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

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

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

i dont know why feminism is called that. but yes it could equally be called "gender equality"ism. women who believe women to be superier to men are not feminists in the socialist sense of the word.

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

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

[Red Poplar]

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

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

[Achara]

Call me dumb.

You're dumb.

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

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

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

It should be called "gender equalism" or something like that. To me, this smells like an attempt to beat oppression by counter-oppression, which has never worked.

Yeah, oppressed groups shouldn't oppress their oppressers because iT iS baD. Whatever, idiot. Your jumps in logic are humorous at best.

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

Fucking lol.

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