Feminist group-man insisting on men being "involved"

Could you suggest to Dave that everyday feminism might turn out to be just up his street and they'd undoubtedly love his wonderfully insightful BTL contributions? (Evil cackle...)

Tell him you are reclaiming the name feminism for all women.

He sounds like a real prince. What a loss to feminism! Please, please, theboy, tell us you told him to take a running jump? I can only imagine the ensuing butthurt - "feminists are so MEAN. I was only trying to help! They're so misandrist!"

jaxingjump, do you honestly think that Dave here would have a valuable perspective to bring to the group? Because what I think Dave wants is for women to STFU.

I think that sounds perfect Countess. Sad about the poor menz who feel excluded and don't want to come in protest though.

My feminist group holds regular all woman meetings and various occasional mixed events, plus a mixed book group. Works very well. There's plenty of opportunity for men who want to be involved to learn and help, and indeed some do. But we have maintained the crucial female space for consciousness-raising and support.
Occasionally we get men saying they won't come to our mixed events because they are offended by the fact that we have women only ones. Naturally that makes me very sad because men like that are exactly what we need to make our movement truly liberatory

Liberation on the oppressor's terms is not liberation.

That's why language is so important. Talking about equality does not address the issue. It's a scaredy-cat way.

It is about oppression and liberation.

And it's no good baulking at the eye rolls that those words generate.

VestalVirgin wrote - "Women are the only oppressed group who'd be daft enough to seriously suggest asking the oppressor for permission to liberate themselves, and expect such a permission to be granted."

Liberation on the oppressor's terms is not liberation.

JaxingJump wrote - "I don't know how you expect to progress women's equality without everyone on board, including men."

Most laws and social attitudes do not need everyone to be on board before they can change.

I do not see why improving life for women could not be achieved with only enough people being on board with feminism. As legislation is passed by a majority of MP's voting in favour, feminists should and do lobby male MPs, because a disproportionately large number of MPs are men. British feminists have to persuade fewer than a thousand powerful men that feminism is the best way forward for women. Therefore, it does not seem unrealistic to me that feminism has the potential to make massive progress without everyone having to be on board.

I do understand that only passing laws will not end women's oppression but I think more women-friendly laws would gradually increase social disapproval and isolation of men who don't get on board with women's equality, whether those men like it or not.

Some people believe that if men do feminism they will add some magical ingredient that will make feminism succeed where it has failed until now. This idea is not the solution to women's problems; instead it's actually part of the male entitlement problem that feminism is trying to solve.

"It never fails to amaze me at how some men think they have the right to demand access to women's only events and spaces. It's sheer arrogance. "

Its more baffling to me why some women think its a good idea and let it happen.

It never fails to amaze me at how some men think they have the right to demand access to women's only events and spaces. It's sheer arrogance.

And yet, it happens so often, I really don't know why I'm surprised any more.

Women are the only oppressed group who'd be daft enough to seriously suggest asking the oppressor for permission to liberate themselves, and expect such a permission to be granted.

That's it in a nutshell.

And to sneer at men that are showing an interest at least

He's not "showing interest", *JaxxingJump^, he's making demands. Why should every women's efforts be centered around men? Why can't women focus on themselves for once in a while?

I don't know how you expect to progress women's equality without everyone on board, including men.

How about just like any other oppressed group rebelling against its oppressors?

Communist revolutions didn't usually ask capitalists for permission before doing their thing, you know?

Women are the only oppressed group who'd be daft enough to seriously suggest asking the oppressor for permission to liberate themselves, and expect such a permission to be granted.

Seriously. Men made all this effort to build and maintain patriarchy, and now you want to meekly ask for permission to dismantle the work of their hands?

Men do not need to be included. It's a feminist group, where women can talk and discuss ways to make their lives a little bit better. Men don't need to have an opinion or to be in agreement. It's really non of their business.

They could have joined and just listened, and no one would have been any the wiser. But no. They had to announce they are men and need to be there.

They don't realise it, but they are proving the point about why we need feminism. A woman using the word 'mansplaining' is deeply offensive, but a man barging in and telling women how to do feminism is fine and dandy

They could have joined and just listened, and no one would have been any the wiser. But no. They had to announce they are men and need to be there.

He thinks that if women want to talk about their experience of abuse, there should be a man there for "balance"?

Holy fucking crap, OP! That's beyond unbelievable. I can think of one, and only one, type of man who would make that kind of remark, and that's a man who is himself an abuser and wants to defend his "right" to continue to abuse women. No normal man (and thankfully we've had a few pop up on this thread - Newdaddie, Dervel, Myname - who didn't get it at first, but then the penny dropped) would say a thing like this.

I bet they don't want to understand or see different perspectives. I bet they want to persist in putting forward their own perspective and trying to make the women in the group understand their point of view. But I could be wrong.

I don't think there's a need to sneer at these men or make enemies of them. I do think it's absolutely fine to say, no, we disagree, we don't want to include men in our discussions.

JaxingJump

I don't think anyone is saying men can't learn. But the men in the OPs situation are clearly not those men.

I don't know how you expect to progress women's equality without everyone on board, including men. It seems a bit like pissing into the wind if we don't educate everyone about the issues. And to sneer at men that are showing an interest at least, or making them the enemy just because they MUST have ulterior motives seems like cutting off your nose.

I think we all have a lot to learn. Not least men but I don't know who is going to help them understand or see different perspectives if we laugh at them even trying.

Exactly what Sparrowhawk just said.

….and yes maybe you should then end it 'fuck off byeeeee'

I'd let them know that if a group has been set up for a particular set of people e.g. feminists or indeed female feminists then it is permissible for them to say that men cannot come because they don't meet the criteria 1) they are clearly not feminists according to how the men have written their comments and b) not women. Maybe it needs to be stipulated on the discussion that it is women only.

There is info on the citizens advice website about this if they need proof that women ARE allowed to bar men!

Another guy has chimed in saying a "volunteer" man should be present "for balance" if for example women were discussing something like abuse they might be suffering

HAhahahahHAHAhahAHAHAAHAHAHAAhHAHAHAhaahahaa

That's awesome.