Feeling conflicted about (childless) man's feminist views on mothering

Let me re word that, Buffy,

By sharing a video, do you think that is speaking for the poet?

The analogies don't reflect the situation. The analogy specifically talks about a man speaking for a woman. Regardless of her knowledge and experience of the subject.

To clarify, do you think posting a video is speaking for the poet? I don't to clarify.

Agreed Buffy, but in this case there is no opinion given and dusk still doesn't like it. So you can assume a man shouldn't even share a video. You can assume dusk has this view for other privileged groups.

Buffy - I agree the analogies are good but they don't apply to the original post. I can agree with analogies but don't think they are relevant to simply sharing a video, created for the purpose of being shared.

If he had mocked the video, dubbed over it, or taken credit for it then that is a different thread altogether.

although like buffy am also agreeing with everyone on the thread...

Bows down to dusk and her beautiful, righteous anger and swearing

Dusk - I think this is where we differ. In this case you are saying that by posting a video online( a video created by the performer for the purpose of being viewed) he is rambling, speaking for her, taking ownership, smirking, etc. purely because he is a man. It's not logical. I'm not pandering to the mans feelings or views because he is not expressing any.

Anyway I look forward to your 'whitesplaining' posts on FGM threads or 'ablebodysplaining' posts on threads about disability.

Oh hi nomnomnom! Nice to see you again

I never pretended to be doing anything other than speaking from a very personal view point!

all the same I do not think it is "out there" that I think men like this should know better and I think I have something in common with the OP (at least) on this.

I feel old today, I have just had a minor op and it knocked me out more than I thought. And my 3 year old is going through a weird sleep (= no sleep) phase.

Here's a sort of tangent on another analogy...I work in a creative industry and I have seen a million great ideas go wrong in the execution. Great ideas by brilliant people can turn into dismal end products in a process of "death by a thousand cuts" - several stages of "minute" alterations (for all sorts of good, practical reasons) can just kill the spirit of the thing.

I feel that all this waffle about "allies" and "getting the men on board" is a massive distraction and an example of a similar thing happening to feminism. men are so good at talking, hogging the airwaves, making it all about them. they already control so much, it is so easy to find yourself doing things on their terms all the time.

I think it is fine to say "fuck that noise" to that process. I think it is fine to say "in our own words, said by us". I think it is fine to demand that this one thing has women front and centre all the time. And if they feel left out, well sorry but you have the rest of the world to play in. I don't get why this is such a huge issue. I really don't. To me this is such an error of taste. It is like having a funeral full of weeping friends and family, and some guy who once sold the deceased a car gets up to be the main speaker, and someone else says "hold on, didn't his wife want to say something? Or shouldn't one of his children speak?" and is violently hushed lest the car-sellers' feelings be hurt. Fuck his feelings! I don't give a fuck about his feelings! What feelings informed him that it was ok to get up in the first place? His feeling that he was at the centre of the universe.

Actually this is more like after the deceased's best friend spoke, movingly, and with feeling, the car-selling-guy gets up, someone else questions it, and is told, it is only fair because his best friend spoke so he should get a chance to speak too.

I get it. You are projecting your own personal frustrations on to the guy. That makes your strong, out there, conclusions more understandable.

So, did you think the guy was (a) rambling or (b) smirking?

I think I was confused because I think we have different meanings for these words.

I asked about having a man film the poet because this is similar to having a man share it online.

Anyway, you are not old at 42!!

Why would the woman do that? what is the point of that counterfactual? A performed poem is a personal thing in which the poet is usually heavily and personally invested in the delivery. Yes it is logically possible that that could happen, but why would it, and what is the need to discuss it until we know who did it, and why?

I think he sounds like a massive arse and I want the (long gone, bored) OP to make some clever enquiries about whether he leaves pots in the sink for other people to wash up.

I am quite old now and one thing that really bugs me is young men patronising me (I am 42, so a fair number of men I meet at work are younger than me). I am small with a high voice and have been patronised all my life. When men who are about 25 do it, I really want to pull some Wodehouse-style-Aunt-Agatha shit on them. This sounds like that kind of guy.

Dusk - do you honestly think the man in the OP was (a) 'rambling' or (b) 'smirking'? Or are you projecting that because of his gender?
How would you feel if the poet asked a man to record her performance, would that make it wrong for you?

Thanks for saying you usually respect my opinion!

there is a bit of category confusion, I think, in this discussion, in that I think I am being very confusing if people think I am handing down a Legalistic Position on How Allies Should Behave Against Those Primarily Concerned. I am more talking about how not to be an annoying knob (to me), which is not at all the same.

And another confusion in that I think we should distinguish between goal-based activism and like-minded people chewing the fat (not that the latter is not productive, but it is discursive and internal and often about people finding their own way to their own positions, rather than speaking from the pulpit).

For goal-based activism, I would have much more sympathy for some enthusiast being a little callow, slightly misjudging the tone. Whatever. he means well, he is putting his shoulder to the wheel, we all make mistakes.

for the discursive, internal stuff, I think he needs to go through that process among people at a more similar stage to him, experientially. I think he should listen, when with people who know more about having babies; and ramble on about the issues in private. Rambling on facebook is not on when it is about women's bodies. Childbirth changes are painful. and personal. and a person who wrote a poem about them is presumably ok with taking it all out in the open, and I admire that, but I don't think I want to see that with a smirking young man's gloss on it.

In the post yesterday I mentioned day to day stuff like housework. I would absolutely love to know what his girlfriend, sisters, or female housemates think about whether he does his fair share. There is a very strong likelihood that if he is against the oppression of women he should get off facebook and clean the kitchen. I don't know the guy - this may be unfair - it's just a thought. just a possibility

Duskandshiver, obviously I don't have the common sense not to talk about fgm; I just mentioned it in a post after you brought the topic up.

Why would I wind you up? I have a feminist piston.g history. I am asking you these question.s because I usually respect your opinion on other issues but think what you ate saying is unethical towards women. Alll your points about systemic inequalities in discussions make sense, but to use that to defend the idea that 'allies' should not link to people talking about their own experiences of discrimination is damaging to feminist, racial equality and gay rights activists. Most activists want their work to be linked to, spread and talked about.

Freya: I didn't say talk about FGM, I said financially support agencies who are combatting it.

I would think those who don't have personal experience of it would have the sense to shut up about it in the presence of those who are closer to it. Please tell me this is true.

Widow - nonsense. I didn't say anything about what does have equivalence. I talked a lot about what doesn't.

I didn't make any value judgements about the content of what people say, more on who gets to hog the air waves on what topics.

I give up. Surely you are both winding me up with all this? Surely it is not that hard? I feel incredibly guilty now about saying something unacceptably rude to someone on another thread who, it seemed to me at the time, couldn't read, but if you aren't winding me up then.... I guess this is what people are like

Duskandshiver, as me and in my experience most people on mn are white British, we shouldn't' be linking to your post or discussing fgm, just listening to women from other ethnic groups talk about it. So how are we meant to tell men they should be doing this? As men are not allowed to talk about it either, they won't be able to tell each other.

"she is assuming an equivalence, a symmetry, between men in general, and women in general, which is false, which does not exist, and the bedroom analogy was supposed to illustrate why."

Nope, I assume that opinions should be scrutinised on their own merit and not because of who voiced them.

Compare

"I'm a woman and I think women adhere to traditional gender roles"

and

"I'm a woman and think women should not be restricted by traditional gender roles, but be allowed to make their own choices"

with

"I'm a man and I think women adhere to traditional gender roles"

and

"I'm a man and think women should not be restricted by traditional gender roles, but be allowed to make their own choices"

By your argument, both opinions are equally valid if argued by a woman, and equally invalid if argued by a man. I really can't see how that makes sense.

Sorry, to be clear on what I meant by the sibling analogy - I was looking at the generality of men and women; not at this particular chap or any particular (real or soi disant) pro feminist man.

the reason why I was looking at the generality is because that is how Widow expressed it, as a general rule, in

"I'd be rightly fucked off if someone dismissed my opinion on any topic based on the fact that I'm a woman. So it'd be hypocritical if I'd dismissed someone's opinion on any topic based on the fact that they're not a woman."

Obviously, in any given case with individuals, there are many reasons why they should be having heard as having a point or not.

As general principles, as expressed by Widow, she is assuming an equivalence, a symmetry, between men in general, and women in general, which is false, which does not exist, and the bedroom analogy was supposed to illustrate why.

there is actually a crashing assumption as one of the premises, as expressed in the analogy, which is that there is some sort of "state of natural fairness" (which has been lost) - that girl and the boy were given equality to start with. I am ok with that. I know that some anti-feminists, certain sort of right wingers or evo relgious types maybe, would counter that and say things like "but women naturally need less space then men" or "women's role is to support men in their enveavours, so they don't need space for their own endeavours". I think that is rubbish, on a deep level of natural law or natural justice, and I am happy to state that clearly.

anyway in response to this chap, or young men like him, and how they should be pro-feminist, my personal - very personal and not a prescription - views are:

as stated above they should be non-sexist in their own family and work dealings
eg - if they work they should actively work against women being treated as assistants (not enough not to go with the flow)
and argue against knee-jerk sentiments expressed by others about the roles of parents (women and men) while working (eg not let it go by when someone says about a person coming back from mat leave "she won't want that big project, she's a mum now" or tutting about women leaving on time)

actively challenge misogyny expressed socially amongst men (including or especially "jokes", especially rape "jokes")

actively work towards taking a genuinely equal part in all domestic work (with sisters, friends, housemates etc) - which means not sitting back and accepting that left to its own devices the women around you will will probably do more if you are man*

Shutting up when women want to talk about women's stuff and listening

With the really heavy stuff like FGM - financially support agencies working against this

*this one looks trivial but I think it is the one that most well meaning men are worst at and the area in which they can be most angrily reluctant to give up their privilege. They should not allow themselves to accept the status quo under which they materially benefit from women's labour.
and this is an example which illustrates that to draw an equivalence between men and women is wrong. A woman doing housework is not a feminist act. Even when done to prevent some other woman from having to do it, it is kind, but not feminist (not anti-feminist - I am just saying not actively feminist). Because it is still women-doing-housework, which is the patriarchy-approved status quo. A man doing housework - especially when specifically to stop some woman from having to do it - can be a pro-feminist act if done in the understanding of how women's labour is traditionally taken for granted and contributing his own labour in an attempt to redress the balance.

this is just one example of why men and women are so differently politically placed that "if right for x, then right for y" just doesn't apply when you try to do this for men and women

To go back to the sibling allegory, wouldn't be a feminist man represented by the brother say "I hear what you're saying, sister, and fully support your claim?" I've not come across a man calling himself a feminist who wouldn't fully support total equality/would look to maintain privilege.

As for "You don't think we should alienate men. How is politely waiting fir them to be fair working out for us?" - that's a false dichotomy. The third (and in my opinion most likely to succeed) way is to collaborate. Neither alienate, nor wait for them to sort it out. But work together, and for that you need to acknowledge their input, too.

If you want to manage change you need to get your stakeholders on your side. You can't do that by telling them to shut up, because they've had their say for too long. That way a) you never get the necessary buy in to generate the momentum to successfully effect lasting change and b) you might miss out on some valuable input which may help driving your aims forward.

So within your sibling allegory, Dusk, what does she do next? Continue to negotiate? Take the offer, then go back for more? Or twat him on the nose? What is your strategy for her gaining what she is entitled to?