Feminism

[slightreturn]

Please feel free to express your views honestly re; Feninism.
What to men really think about it?

Gosh Snorbss - those does lead us into a whole new strand of this debate - Maleness and masculinity - what do they mean and how does it relate to feminism? UQD and Beenbeta seem to have withdrawn.

So. whaddya think?

I've been thinking about maleness and masculinity as I wandered round the supermarket.

Quite honestly for a lot of my life I've largely defined myself by traits I don't want to have, if you see what I mean. My dad was an alcoholic womaniser and I've made damn sure I don't follow in his footsteps. I have had male acquaintances who would think nothing of a skinful of beer and a fight of a friday night; I'm avowedly non-violent. I've been bullied so I don't bully.

I think in my 20s I was almost ashamed of being a man. There were so many negative connotations - men are violent, men are beligerent, men are dumb, men are emotionally stunted, men are only after sex, men can't be trusted - that I was embarrassed to be a man and also cringing over being the same sex as rapists and serial killers. For many years I only ever heard the word "masculine" used effectively as an insult.

It's only since becoming a father that I've re-thought those prejudices and realised that, of course, a lot of those negative connotations are untrue. And the fact that those rapists and serial killers were men is less important to their crimes than the fact that they were nut-jobs.

As for where that leaves maleness today and feminism, I dunno. As has been said several times in here, I think any man who doesn't ascribe to feminist principles at least in the sense of striving for equality between the sexes is either woefully uninformed or a total wanker. Equality between the sexes makes just as much sense, and is just as much a basic moral position, as equality between the different races.

I'm not so sure about maleness in feminism as a political idea simply because I don't know what to do. I'm not saying that it's not needed or that it is irrelevant, it's more that it doesn't seem to be anything I can touch.

I can, and do, raise my DS and DD to know that men and women are equal and both are worthy of respect. I do point out to them, in derisory tones, adverts that promote sexual stereotypes and the like. And if I come across someone who is overtly sexist then I either challenge them about it or remove myself depending on the social situation. But then I do exactly the same when I encounter racism, homophobia and the like.

Thinking about it, I see my attempts to discourage and avoid sexism as no more or less important to me as my attempts to discourage and avoid racism and homophobia. It's all part and parcel of treating people as equals. Am I looking at it wrongly? I suppose I am if you view feminism as more than just a struggle for equality and anti-sexism.

(Crikey, that turned into a bit of an essay. If you get all the way to the end you get a packet of Haribos as a prize )

Do I get the ones with the fried eggs???

Just joining in a bit late here

Snorbs, thanks for your last post. I do increasingly think that the next logical stage for 'feminism' or 'gender equality' or whatever we want to call it, is for men to see how much it benefits them and to start arguing for some of those benefits and working with women to achieve these goals together.

I have been having discussions with my DH recently about what seems to be a real crisis of masculinity (what does it mean to be a man, where are the good male role models etc) and I agree with you Snorbs that too often men are forced to define themselves by what they don't want to be. In some ways it is easier for me to talk to my daughter about her future and about feminism and what it means to be a strong woman, than it would be for me to set out the same thing for a boy, and that makes me sad.

Lots of men genuinely want equality - well I think they need to start fighting for it as well. More paternity leave, shorter working hours, more time with their families, flexible working. Women increasingly demand and expect to be able to work and see their DC but men do not and if they are serious about equality then they should.

I'm quite saddened to hear how unwelcome men feel on the feminism threads - I for one would welcome more male input there and I don't think men are 'the enemy' by any means. I think you're (mainly) quite lovely in your manliness

With males i think there will always be a greater drive towards violent conduct or certain types of behaviour that is just part of our makeup. It's nice to believe that such behaviour is due to society/culture but that only ever works if you ignore our surroundings as such traits are common in virtually all mammal species.

The only difference is that we have greater intelligence and so we are capable of analysing our behaviour and controlling ourselves to a greater degree most of the time. However there will be people who won't control themselves and no matter how much we as a people express negativity towards this kind of behaviour there will still be such people because it is impossble to control everyone as we are all individuals.

As for sexism well that is an attitude more easily combated and has most of it's roots based on the society/culture the people in. Change society and attitudes within that society will change also. And i believe that society is changing in regards of attitudes towards women it may not be fast but it is there. I also notice that it is much aware of the treatment of women elsewhere.

However it is important to note that such attitudes are not linked to ones gender alone there are many factors as women also do their fare share as well. I also don't want to see 'masculinity' become the new whipping boy sure it can be toned down but it is not in general a negative thing.

So to your question

"How can you be alpha if you can't find the proof of your 'superiority' in your wallet anymore? Will you still look in your Y fronts or your fists. Is that what a man is? A piece of muscle?"

No this does not apply to me nor has it ever applied to me i can only control my attitudes and behaviour and influence my DS in a positive way. As well as influence my friends and family. But there will be people that will do this and i am sorry for that.

"HerBeatitude, you're entering realms of semantics that are beyond me. My dictionary defines misogyny as hatred of women. Not a woman, or even some women, or femaleness, but women. What do you mean by "femaleness" that is separate from women?

I see it as analogous to misanthropy, the hatred of people in general. A true misanthrope doesn't just hate some people, he/she hates everyone."

Sorry I overlooked this post yesterday. I don't think a misanthrope hates everyone they know - obviously they have personal friendships, people they love etc., but they just hate humanity as a whole. They're the sort of people who think human nature is basically shit and human beings have fucked up the planet so we should all just contracept ourselves out of existence so that bears and wolves can be left to roam the earth in peace. Or they believe that basically people are malevolent and bad and motivated by selfishness rather than altruism. But that doesn't stop them engaging in friendship and love, IYSWIM. For me mysogynist is exactly the same concept.

It's an interesting discussion I've never really thought about exactly what I think mysogyny is. But I think what it is at base, is the sense that women's concerns, feelings, interests, bodies and lives just simply are not quite as important, quite as human, as men's. That's what I meant about feminism being the idea that women are fully human, which seems obvious but in practice isn't. A German feminist of the 19c described it as "unmundigkeit" - which sort of translates as immaturity, or unripeness or stunted. In other words, man has been taken as the measure of all things and women are a bit of an afterthought, not quite chidlren, but not as authoritative and grown up as the men. And the world has been organised accordingly.

Quite a post there, Snorbs! I claim a sweetie!

Our 'development' as boys-to-men is quite different it seems, though I can appreciate most of what you refer to. I did grow up without a mother ( tragic early death), but with a very equality-minded father and two wonderful sisters, so the negative role-modelling bit didn't happen to me like it did you.

I am though querying the bit what you say about "And the fact that those rapists and serial killers were men is less important to their crimes than the fact that they were nut-jobs." My way of thinking is that their crimes are almost totally related ot their gender. For lots of reasons. V. briefly most of them are not 'nut jobs' - they are men for whom particular people didn't conform to their expectations and hopes, and they have awarded themselves the permission to be angry about this and to exercise this anger ( and also massively 'fear') on these victims. Violently, or sexually, or both to some degree. A few are psychopaths ( absence of moral feeling), but the vast majority are not and will pass through day to day conduct with other people in a very civilised profile. Also, female 'nut jobs', such as they exist in any number, are far more likely to harm themselves as anyone else.

There is a sort of biological imperative that leads to certain risky behaviours amongst men than women but as saltatrix indicates we should be able to use our endowed capabilities to mediate between this and the demand for civilised behaviour. Trouble is, society often indicates that they/we don't have to bother doing this.

Really interesting posts.

Apologies if I offended by using the word "silly", I assure you I was referring to a line or argument rather than a person. Perhaps "ridiculous" or "absurd" or "biiizarre" might be better next time?

On the offchance that anyone is interested, there's a Feminism in London conference at the end of October. Quite a lot of the workshops are open to men IIRC and it promises to be a good day.

Also meant to say sorry about your mum, Pan :(

I thought your post was very clear and good about why some people attack/kill others.

What I find odd is how many women see women's rights specifically as something that needs to be fought for. There's no gay rights section on here. Or immigrant rights.

Me, I campaign for equal rights. For everyone. I think it's horribly sexist to focus your attention just on women. So many groups are oppressed and need help to gain the rights we should all share equally.

What I also find odd is how most words which end in -ist mean that you are against something, not for it. Racist, sexist, ageist.... So why feminist? Hmmmmmmmm.....

You can start a gay rights section, or an immigrants rights section, or a disabled rights section, and I would hope that a lot of people would join in and post, I probably would myself.

But saying you can't fight one injustice unless you fight all of them simultaneously (or none at all), seems likely to be counter-productive. I don't go up to people fundraising for prostate cancer and tell them that they're rude to not campaign for leukaemia. People have limited time and energy and support for one thing doesn't indicate that that is the only thing they are interested in, or that they are opposed to other things.

Have a look here: " People talk about subjects that interest them and that they are passionate about because these tend to be the areas in which they have the most experience. Choosing to concentrate on one thing does not mean that the person thinks that it is the most important subject, or that it?s the only subject that they ever focus on. Not every discussion can, or should, include disclaimers that list all the ?more important? topics that the author deals with elsewhere, because persuading others and planning productively means that there are times when it?s necessary to concentrate selectively on a certain subject."

thanks for your sympathies E&M - it was 40 years ago. But often feels like yesterday.

idiotic/silly - wasn't offended at all . I know these were about the arguments put forwards, rathere than the posters themselves. Could see how it could have grated tho'. Ironically it was UQD who posited how females tend to communicate in a non-provocative, enabling manner!

Annie - its a mumsnet site, so feminism is an encompassing feature, perhaps a given, including gay/black/immigrant people. There IS a lesbian/gay section, and nothing is preventing anyone from raising anything they wish to.

"non-provocative" - oh yes that's me to a T :o

I see your point, Elephant, but I would probably say, "I believe in, and work towards equal right for everyone, but I tend to focus my attention on women".

This is going to be tricky to express well.... To some extent, I think that being so vocal about how women need help to be more like men, highlights that there are differences, and implies that women need that help as they aren't capable of helping themselves, poor weak things.

See, I knew that would come out badly.

I know there are lots of women who do need that help since they are indeed horribly oppressed and abused and in no position to help themselves. But I think that in most cases, in places where women are oppressed, so are children, homosexuals and other minority groups. So surely it would make sense to campaign for equal human rights in those situations?

I also think it's unfair to come over to a men's board, and demand to know what they think about feminism, then accuse them of letting their daughters down if they don't identify with the feminist cause. Why should they? I don't identify with it and I'm a woman! Many have expressed that they think everyone should have equal rights. Surely that's enough?

ooh annie - no-one is demanding anything of anyone here. Dadsnet isn't purely about males, and this has been by some distance the best thread in this v. sleepy hollow for years...

Think he was hoping for a wind-up, must be really disappointed

Annie, no-one is saying women need help to become more like men - far from it! But lets get back to the basic point first.

Saying "well, there should just be equal human rights" might be a laudable proposition, but it doesn't actually get you anywhere. It's a bit like saying "I think there should be world peace, so why all this focus on Israel/Palestine?" You need to have a place to start, and a system of discrimination that involves 50% of the population being discriminated against strikes me as a very good place to start.

I just think that focussing so blinkerdly on women leaves other who are in the exactly same position (both geographically and in opressed status) behind when it would be just as easy to extend your help to them too.

How, precisely? Are you saying that by, say, arguing for changes to the law to ensure women have equal rights in the UK, you are using up time you might use to do something More Important?

That's like saying that campaigning for AIDS research so blinkeredly leaves people with skin cancer behind. It doesn't work like that. You can't just say "let's all be equal!!" Then write a big law saying "Everyone is equal".

Well, if you can, there are a hell of a lot of civil servants drafting a lot of unneccesary verbiage.