Feminist group-man insisting on men being "involved"

The 'for balance' thing betrays how these men really feel about feminism. In their eyes the experiences and viewpoints of women are there to be questioned and debated, not accepted. And if they decide that actually women have nothing to complain about then it's game over, they've stated the way things are and women have to shut up.

I've only ever heard men say mansplaining is offensive. If a woman said it she must be a handmaiden, so that provides all the 'balance' the group 'needs'

TheSparrowhawk

I'm not disagreeing with anything you have said. Something about the OPs post made me think that this man's presence is something of a foregone conclusion.

I have the mental image of him showing up ready to dismiss women's concerns. And I know the presence of a man changes the dynamic instantly. I was more thinking about the other women in this group and how that man's presence will alter things. Unless they are fairly radical women, there is a chance that he will be centred by some of them.

I wanted to make that difficult for them. I'm not suggesting it would make it difficult for him necessarily, but it would reduce any support he had.

If it's a radfem group, he stands no chance anyway.

Sorry but these sort of groups need to start thinking about how they include and promote trans-people on a more holistic/humanistic level. You can't restrict such important matters to 'pure' cis gender types.

Huh? How is that even relevant to the thread?

Sheesh. A potential group for women and before it's even organised there are people lining up with reasons why those women should not be allowed to have a group unless they actively search out and include trans people and centre their issues and men's issues and centre their issues.... isn't that a tiny bit of a giveaway that the massive problem for born women - I don't like 'cis' and don't use it - is that they are expected to put their own needs, feelings and issues aside to prioritise and sort out everyone else's? And that demonstrates very clearly that women are seen as inferior, unimportant, there to service others and without the right to meet without other higher status people setting their agenda and setting them right?

The belittling of the guy's 'but if you're only going to get together to gossip, whinge and talk about periods 'cleanse and relieve frustrations' says it all. If that's the case then he gives permission that 'just' women may talk about that without supervision. Which is very big of him I'm sure.

This guy is not going to be any help and he's going to be an active pain in the bum.

I agree vesuvia. I also think that feminist groups are a place where women can state what they think and feel, honestly, without men telling them they can't think or feel that way. I think women are so used to having everything in their lives policed by men that having a truly female space, where no one is going to tell them they're overreacting or overthinking or man bashing or whatever is incredibly liberating. For many women just having that space improves their lives.

It seems to me that the man described in the OP is already laying down his rules about what feminism should be and how feminists should behave, before he has even joined the feminist group. It will only get worse for women if he joins the group.

My experience of feminist groups is that they are a way for women to:
(a) analyse women's personal experiences of sexism and misogyny
(b) set a feminist agenda for women's liberation from patriarchal oppression
(c) inform and influence the powerful people who make laws and control finances.

Is a random man likely to be able to contribute positively to women's understanding of being oppressed because of femaleness? No.

I think that the participation of men in setting the feminist agenda is unhelpful and also unnecessary for ensuring that feminism eventually succeeds in its goal of improving the lives of women and girls by liberating women and girls from patriarchal oppression.

Is a random man likely to be exceptionally talented in his ability to lobby the people who hold power to persuade them to end patriarchal oppression of women? No.

One of the reasons why women have not yet achieved liberation from patriarchal oppression is because too many anti-feminist men have negatively interfered with feminism, not because too many allegedly pro-feminist men have been prevented from helping feminism.

Men have had hundreds of years to sort it out. They have had the power and the time, but still don't see a problem, aren't bothered about it or don't know how to solve it. What use are they to feminism?

IME what most men absolutely will not do is acknowledge their own sexist attitudes. 'Allies' like to tell women that they are good guys who've never benefitted from sexism in any way or had a single sexist thought in their lives. Oh and they have some great suggestions as to how we could be better feminists. FUCK OFF.

A male voice no matter how well intentioned acts to reinforce things we might want to be getting away from.

In some ways it's a bit of a minefield, the best example I can think of is this topical debate surrounding transsexuals. I am a firm terf sympathizer. I've read the arguments mainly from here and I can present the case pretty robustly now.

However the landscape of the discussion changes if I happen across one of my libfem pro trans friends. How forcefully do I put the case forward? Currently my position is to state what I think, but not to press.

Every interaction between men and women carries the legacy of violence and oppression that has preceded it. Obviously once interactions move past it you can form proper relationships be they professional, friendly or romantic, but it's always wise to keep a weather eye on what's gone before.

I think a standard "well I'm just egalitarian and blind to gender/race/whatever" might be the place we'd all like to get to, but we cannot just teleport there. We also have different starting points so that journey itself at points needs to be walked alone. The challenges of some of the pitfalls and terrain is different.

I think it's unhelpful for men to say they are feminists or even allies as to do so betrays a lack of awareness of where we all stand relative to one another.

Any men that I have ever talked to about feminism have been so stuck in their own privilege that they will always, without fail, try to tell what women what they think and feel. They will sit there, and with a totally straight face, actually inform women what women think. And they will entirely expect women to nod and thank them for their sage wisdom.

The other classic is:

Man: Women in the UK have nothing to worry about
Woman: 85,000 women in the UK are raped every year, that's pretty worrying
Man: Now you're just point scoring.

Oh right. Because claiming that 85,000 rapes a year is not worrying would make you look like a total asshole so instead you resort to pathetically devaluing what I'm saying. Mature.

It's just a totally pointless conversation.

That wasn't directed at you Datun, just a general rant.

Regarding your post, though, I think your view is quite naive. It's not about people not getting it and needing education. It's about men not seeing women as fundamentally capable of stating their own truth - whatever women say no matter how well backed by evidence, will always be considered somehow lesser and easily dismissed.

I'm with everyone else just telling him to fuck off.

If his opener is "If it's a meeting for gender equality (which effectively IS what feminism means) then men HAVE to be involved in the discussion" then any attempt to educate him will be both boring and fruitless. You could invite him to educate himself about feminism on his own time, without having to give him any more of your time and attention.

Can you imagine what a meeting with this bloke in the room would be like? Urgh.

TheSparrowhawk

Oh, I totally agree. I only suggest informing someone for the benefit of other women who don't quite get it.

If all women understood feminism, it would make it so much more powerful.

Women don't actually 'need' to do anything a man tells them to do, whether that man identifies as a man or not.

I wish men could get this is into their fucking heads.

pooch has got it.

The problem with dudes like in the OP, and with the concept that it's great when men want to get involved, is that you spend more time catering to the men, NAMALTing, and explaining things to them that are perfectly fucking obvious to women that it harms the ability to actually move forward and get stuff done. Women modify their speech when men are around. Dynamics change

They don't understand feminism 101. You are armed with all this knowledge but then have to justify everything you say because they start disputing the basics.

Which you could use actually.

You could start the first session with a timeline of women's rights. Pointing out how women were treated, what they were called, the ridiculous and damaging attitudes. The legal battles.

By the time they've got through all that, not only will they have a better understanding, but their objections would die in the water.

Ahh bless..... First send him here and then tell him to fuck off.

Just tell him to fuck off

This.

If his first action towards a feminist group is to tell the women trying to start it that their aims aren't legitimate, then he is vastly unlikely to be any kind of decent ally.

Call yourselves a women's liberation group instead?

I've always been open to the idea that men could be feminists, and I've debated as much on here. That said, I have never personally met a man who I could hand on heart say lives up to his proclaimed feminism. The problem with dudes like in the OP, and with the concept that it's great when men want to get involved, is that you spend more time catering to the men, NAMALTing, and explaining things to them that are perfectly fucking obvious to women that it harms the ability to actually move forward and get stuff done. Women modify their speech when men are around. Dynamics change. Men generally get more airtime in any given conversation, and it's hard for women and men to break out of that - men in female dominated conversations feel shut out, belittled, and they act out on that. Unless they can address it (most won't).

Look at how often in happens in here. There are many conversations that I'd like to have, and have tried to have that get derailed by men spluttering about hurt feelings, or derailing into "egalitarianism". That's what happens IRL, too, I have found.

I like the idea of the occasional open meeting for male allies to attend. Kind of like Ladies Night at the Freemasons ;)

Yeah, I'll happily march for black rights. I won't insist I need to be in the room to talk about the issues because I'm white and without me they won't get anything changed

I'm the opposite (black & male) and completely agree Olenna

I wouldn't dream of demanding to be in the group but perhaps it's easier for me to find a bit of cognitive empathy because I have a personal perspective of both privilege and underprivilege from my gender and ethnicity respectively. So it might help to make him understand by finding his personal struggle/underprivilege to help him understand.

Or u could tell him to fuck off.

I'd probably go with the later.

Send Datun reply.

Then add that you'll be having some open meetings for men to attend so that they can be educated on women's rights, issues and oppression and how best men can change to help solve the problems women face due to the behaviour of men.

need to start thinking about how they include and promote trans-people

Ftt would be welcome. Because they're women.

Men take over discussions, feminism needs to be run by and for women. If men really want to be part of it, they will accept this with no dramas and be happy to take part in other ways.

Today 09:04 WellErrr

Some men just feel really angry and threatened by women meeting up without them.

Couldn't agree more. And now it is discriminatory not include a man in women only group, if that man identifies as one.

Whether you want them there or not.