Results 1 to 20 of 161
question to the guys: Feminist or ally?
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)
Liberal Dudes are guys who will jump up and down to tell you that they’re all about equality and prosperity for everyone, but then tell you about the strip club they were at the night before or about the awesome anal porn site they last jerked off to. Liberal Dudes are ready to welcome us into the boardroom, provided we’re still willing to dance on the conference table at the employee party. Liberal Dudes love “sex-positive” “feminists” because Liberal Dudes support women’s freedom and “rights,” up to and including our “right” to strip and to suck dicks for money. Liberal Dudes love to see women embracing pornorific behavior like pole dancing, pube waxing, porn watching, thong wearing, chick kissing, and boob flashing as a means to “empowerment,” because that’s exactly the kind of power they want us to have: the power to give them boners.
... Wth is an ally?
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.
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.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
The liberation of women is by no means inherent to the term socialist. Misogyny and socialism have a long linked history.
"I have declared war on the rich who prosper on our poverty, the politicians who lie to us with smiling faces, and all the mindless, heartless robots who protect them and their property." - Assata Shakur
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.
"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.
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."
If we really want to transform life, we must learn to look at it through the eyes of women. – Trotsky, 1923
The ballot box is the coffin of class consciousness. – Alan Dawley
Proud member of the 47% since 2010 – Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!
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.
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.
"Her development, her freedom, her independence must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children unless she wants them; by refusing to become a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc. ... by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women."~ Emma Goldman
Support RevLeft!
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.
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
'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).
"It is slaves, struggling to throw off their chains, who unleash the movement whereby history abolishes masters." - Raoul Vaneigem
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things." - Karl Marx
"What distinguishes reform from revolution is not that revolution is violent, but that it links insurrection and communisation." - Gilles Dauvé
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.
If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom there is a chance to contribute to making a better world.
If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!
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.
"I'm not interested in indulging whims from members of your faction."
Seeing as this is seen as acceptable by an admin, from here on out when I have a disagreement with someone I will be asking them to reference this. If you want an explanation of my views, too bad.
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.
You really make a lot of silly threads.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.
I feel deeply sorry for not living up to your intelligence standards. Asshole.
Liberal Dudes are guys who will jump up and down to tell you that they’re all about equality and prosperity for everyone, but then tell you about the strip club they were at the night before or about the awesome anal porn site they last jerked off to. Liberal Dudes are ready to welcome us into the boardroom, provided we’re still willing to dance on the conference table at the employee party. Liberal Dudes love “sex-positive” “feminists” because Liberal Dudes support women’s freedom and “rights,” up to and including our “right” to strip and to suck dicks for money. Liberal Dudes love to see women embracing pornorific behavior like pole dancing, pube waxing, porn watching, thong wearing, chick kissing, and boob flashing as a means to “empowerment,” because that’s exactly the kind of power they want us to have: the power to give them boners.
