Men can join the feminist movement, but men should never lead the feminist movement. So feminism should not actually be completely "sex-blind".
Results 41 to 60 of 89
Achara, you can state your opinion without insulting other people, you know. Your views may be closer to the truth than mine, but you lack any emotional intelligence to demonstrate them properly.
Men can join the feminist movement, but men should never lead the feminist movement. So feminism should not actually be completely "sex-blind".
In which ways?
Seems like there's a variety of issues where men get the short end of the stick, too. And unlike the politics of race, it's not an instance of individual discrimination but systematic expectations and hurdles. Most white people will never face negative discrimination beyond affirmative action programs and cliques. Most men will.
I don't identify as a feminist because I disagree with the notion that patriarchy alone is to blame for the tribulations men face, that men shouldn't co-lead a gender revolution, that men are almost in every circumstance better off than women. Like I said in a different thread, I went through a false rape accusation that really enlightened me on some of the dirtier corners in gender politics. I was told by women "all men are pigs" or "all men are capable of rape" when I pleaded my innocence. That's an idea enforced by some women and not at all apparent in the minds of men. Furthermore, a lot of what once was patriarchy is now enforced the most by women for their own benefit.
I'm not a misogynist, just highly skeptical of what one intends to do when he or she says "men need to join the movement, but shut up and not try to be a leader."
Feminism = equal rights for every gender, but is predominantly made up with Women?
Then yes, I'm a feminist. I believe women should lead the fight for equal rights, and I will support them but refuse to take a leading role. Their fight must be supported, not lead by the likes of myself.
Never say, you weren't warned
When they come to drag you away
To silence the dissident hiding in us all
They clench the fist of ordained might
From which side of the barbed wire
Do you want to see your life pass by?
That's not the case, but the interesting thing is that often the greatest oppressors of disadvantaged men are other men, not women. That is a manifestation of patriarchy.
Take expectations for instance. Culturally men are expected to always be an "iron john" and never show any kind of "emotional weakness" even when it's objectively not healthy for him to do so. But suppose a man deliberately breaks this implicit cultural rule and starts to actually cry like a woman, it won't be other women who would laugh at the men the hardest, in fact some women may even feel sympathetic, just like some women like to befriend "effeminate" gay men even though there is absolutely no romance involved, it would be other men who would give this block a hard time. Similarly, most homophobes against gay men are other men, not women, which is why many people say homophobia won't disappear until sexism does.
The problem with many men is that implicitly they still assume that masculine traits are intrinsically superior than feminine ones. Even when they do really think that they are literally disadvantaged with respect to women they still think that fundamentally it is "better" to be a man than a woman. I've heard girls who are not transgendered in any sense at all saying stuff like "I wish I was a boy" so that she wouldn't have to face all the sexism and structural disadvantage against women, but frankly I've never heard straight cis-gendered men saying "I wish I was female" just because he believes he is being structurally disadvantaged relative to women. So either the "structural disadvantage males face sometimes" isn't that real in the concrete socio-economic sense or deep down in their hearts these men still feel they are superior to women. If this kind of attitude is taken into the feminist movement, it would act to distort the movement with its masculinist bias.
The problem with trying to form a "masculinist" movement parallel with the "feminist" movement is precisely this: the most serious oppressors of women are not other women, but other men; but the most serious oppressors of men are indeed other men. So frankly it is difficult to form a kind of "comprehensive gender solidarity" that would be required for this kind of movement among men.
Last edited by Queercommie Girl; 19th September 2010 at 21:40.
Wrong. Feminism is believing in female supremacy, more specifically white female supremacy.
Then please explain why there are many feminists - prominent ones at that - of colour?
If anything, third-wave/post-feminism (in the "power feminism" or "fun feminism" sense, not post-modern/post-structuralist sense) is dominated by and works for the interests of white, privileged women.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
I've found that a lot of women are just as hurtful when it comes to rejecting emotional men. The main difference is one of implicit reaction: men are generally taught to be upfront with their disdain, whereas women learn to speak behind one's back. I hate anecdotes, but I'm a rather promiscuous cis-gendered heterosexual male, and it's been more than a few times when I've been told by the woman that she wants a 'real' man. I don't consider myself an 'emotional' man - I'm not practicing machismo, but I'm generally turned off by anyone who identifies as 'emotional.' And it's not just fathers who are instilling these behaviors; it's mothers too.
I have. Especially when it comes to divorce law where courts clearly flavor women or in undergraduate education where women can find a slew of financial assistance just for them despite now being the majority and most educated.
Being a man is not a constant rose bed full of joy, and it's not always "patriarchy" that's to blame.
We have users on this forum who refer to men as Neanderthals. It's a two-way road. A lot of women feel that they're more compassionate and level-headed than men. How many times has it been said that men only think with their lower heads?
And that thought process is exactly why most men will never become or identify as feminist.
Yes, but not as much as men do. This is also why for instance that most homophobes against gay men are other men, not women. More mothers defend their gay sons than fathers do.
And who do you think commits most of the homophobic and transphobic hate crimes around the world? It's men not women. So as a LGBT activist I have no choice but to see reactionary men as a bigger threat to our community than reactionary women. Generally speaking, existing "men's movements" tend to be relatively right-wing and anti-LGBT, except the pro-feminist men's movement. Feminism on the other hand is, in the majority of instances, an ally to LGBT liberation.
And frankly, yourself seems to be an example of a man who doesn't like "emotional" men.
Then maybe you should change sex too!(just kidding)
The thing is that the entire institution of marriage as it exists now under class society is reactionary, just that it impacts men and women in different ways.
But I've never heard of women students getting explicit financial support just because they are women.
Patriarchy is mostly to blame, both directly and indirectly. You could say that the minority of "man-hating" opinions among ultra-radical "feminists" is ultimately an excessive kind of response against the oppression they've suffered under men. If patriarchy didn't exist in the first place, ultra-radical feminism wouldn't either.
I've never heard that. Could you provide a link?
But it's not just a "thought process", it's a fact. And actually nowadays many left-wing and progressive men are becoming more pro-feminist. Your views do not speak for "most men".
I'd really like to see a source on this. Feminism isn't about matriarchy or beating up and oppressing males for revenge; it is purely about gender equality - it is named femin-ism because it has been and still is nearly always the female gender which has been economically oppressed for most of human history (except for example in parts of Papua New Guinea, where the gender roles are reversed from the rest of human society).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.
So these kind of things are isolated incidents?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.
It should be sex-blind in terms of leadership. It should be a conscious movement in the whole of the working class to strive for gender equality. The name is somewhat misleading as it makes it sound like a womens'-only movement - which couldn't be further from the truth these days. I've explained the reason for the naming above.
Whilst some batshit-insane motherfuckers might agree with you on the first part of your post, there is absolutely nothing about the concept of feminism or the terminology it uses which excludes non-whites from the movement.
I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard.Care to provide any comprehensive evidence for this at all? because evidence seems to suggest that most gay men have troubled relationships with their mothers than vice versa:
http://www.albatrus.org/english/potp...s_gay_sons.htm
And speaking from personal experience (which of course isn't scientific, but still) I have yet to meet gay man who had a good relationship with his mother.
Actually the link you have provided seems to suggest the opposite:I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/potp...s_gay_sons.htm
Gay men tend to have had negative relationships with their fathers, half of them (compared with a quarter of heterosexuals) feeling anger, resentment and fear towards fathers whom they deem cold, hostile, detached or submissive.
They do not see their fathers as role models.
More than 70 per cent feel dissimilar to them while growing up (against a third of heterosexuals) and more similar to their mother. About half feel that their mothers did not want them to be like their fathers, and more than two thirds feel that their mothers dominated their fathers.
And what's with the personal-level hostility? Are you just feeling frustrated for no reason since no-one on this forum seems to like you?
And the most important issue here is that even a completely illiterate and idiotic dumbass like you can't deny that the vast majority of serious homophobes and transphobes are men, not women.
You selectively cherry-picked this factoid, ignoring the part about "domineering, controlling mothers" who emasculate and control the men in their family. as well as the mothers who basically flirt with their sons. Because incestuous innuendo is such a great thing, right? Also, it doesn't suggest they were abused by their fathers, just that they viewed their fathers with anger, resentment, and fear. it doesn't even suggest the fathers were abusive like you suggested.
1.) I don't need anyone to like me on here. It's not a popularity contest. I have friends. I don't need bozo armchair revolutionaries bugging me IRL either. The few who do hate me on here, I really can't stand to be honest and would've been banned if I were in charge, so they have more patience with me than I would with them.
2.) No, I just can't stand how much authority you assume when you type, considering you know nothing at all.
Except when they're not:
http://abcnews.go.com/News/christine...ry?id=11681981 (This was even in the news today)
I just really think you want to blame men for all the problems relating to transphobia and homophobia, when that is a misguided idiotic attempt to assess blame.
It's a theory, not a "factoid".
The whole idea about "domineering" mothers is pretty bullshit since it's related to the reactionary idea that women can't be dominant, so when mothers become more dominant relative to fathers, there must be something wrong. *gasp*
The article sounds like homosexuality is something "abnormal" compared with heterosexuality, like it's the product of "incestuous" mother-son relationship. When in fact generalised bi-sexuality is actually more "normal" than exclusive heterosexuality, the latter being a product of class society.
The point about "emasculating" is bullshit too, since what exactly is wrong with men acting like women anyway? There is no need to somehow label it as "abnormal" by trying to explain it using an "emasculating hypothesis".
All your obsession with religion seems to have taught you absolutely nothing in the way of wisdom and patience then.
For the record, I didn't hate you. If anything, between us it's always you who comes out with the unjustified personal insults first.
I'm just stating things plainly and making my arguments and points. It's due to your poor English standard that you seem to imagine me as preaching as if I possess some kind of "high authority".
I'm not looking at anecdotal evidence, but statistical evidence. I don't deny there are serious transphobes and homophobes among women, but the majority are clearly men. Only a fool would suggest otherwise.
No I don't blame all men for homophobia/transphobia, but to a significant extent I do blame patriarchy, which is not the same thing, since most progressive and pro-feminist men of all sexualities also oppose patriarchy, as well as most genuine socialists of any gender. The association between homophobia/transphobia and patriarchy is something most modern Marxists, feminists and LGBT theorists would understand.
I just really think you are a closet homophobe/transphobe and a supporter of the idea that "traditional rigid gender roles are the best" but you care too much about "political correctness" to come out with your ideas directly. I suggest you join a right-wing men's movement like the "promise keepers" in the US rather than wasting time here on a radical leftist forum. I now seriously doubt that you are a genuine progressive socialist at all.
Correlation does not equal causation though. If more homosexual males feel detachment from their fathers than heterosexuals, it could be due to their homosexual nature in the first place which caused them to take an interest in "non-masculine" things and behavior which created an inability to relate to the heterosexual father.
For the record I am a bisexual male and I did grow up in a single parent household with a domineering mother who injected negative feelings towards my father in me.
Yes, trust Shankara to quote sources originating from a right-wing religious website:I love the unsubstantiated bullshit that just seems to spew from your keyboard.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/potpourri/homosex/dominant_mothers_gay_sons.htm
And speaking from personal experience (which of course isn't scientific, but still) I have yet to meet gay man who had a good relationship with his mother.
http://www.albatrus.org/english/home.htm
With this kind of views on abortion rights:
30 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States approved legislation effectively determining the ‘legal right’ of a woman to terminate a pregnancy virtually at any time of gestation up to very point of delivery of a live child; a judgement that hastened the growth of the infamous ‘pro-choice’ movement.
And on homosexuality:
To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. Paul Rondeau, a doctoral student in persuasion studies at Regent University, says the strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight"for the good of American values.
Talk about being reactionary...
It was quoting a Time's article. the website is immaterial.Yes, trust Shankara to quote sources originating from a right-wing religious website:
http://www.albatrus.org/english/home.htm
With this kind of views on abortion rights:
30 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States approved legislation effectively determining the ‘legal right’ of a woman to terminate a pregnancy virtually at any time of gestation up to very point of delivery of a live child; a judgement that hastened the growth of the infamous ‘pro-choice’ movement.
And on homosexuality:
To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. Paul Rondeau, a doctoral student in persuasion studies at Regent University, says the strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight"for the good of American values.
Talk about being reactionary...
It's not immaterial in the sense that the information provided on a reactionary site is very likely to be bogus yet you are using that as an argument against me. But then what can I expect from a closet transphobe/homophobe/sexist like you who thinks transwomen shouldn't "*****" about the oppression they suffer under and "make a victims of themselves" but should rather start to "act like a man" and bottle up their feelings?
It doesn't really matter. The key thing is that this whole scheme of attempting to "explain" homosexuality in terms of some kind of "flaw" in one's family relations, whether on the mother's side or the father's side, is fundamentally flawed itself, because implicitly it is still assuming that homosexuality is something intrinsically "abnormal" relative to heterosexuality.
While feminism clearly is pro-gender equality, technically the feminist movement and the movement for gender equality aren't exactly congruent. Feminism is after all by definition a women's movement, and therefore it is based on women's self-emancipation. If men begin to lead the women's movement, it would be like "vanguardist" people from non-working class backgrounds leading the worker's movement.
However, there is nothing wrong with having a pro-feminist men's movement that caters more to male-specific issues that also fights for gender equality alongside the women's movement. In fact, a pro-feminist men's movement is the only kind of men's movement that is progressive, all other kinds of men's movements are reactionary. But there is no reason why there cannot be a men's movement in principle. Men don't suffer from oppression placed on them by women, but some men at least also suffer from gender inequality that exists in society, e.g. gay men.
