TheShriekingHarpy et al.....Whats In It For You?

[frikonastick]

Can I just say very quickly, this isn?t a call out for an argument, I am genuinely asking a question of some of the posters here in the feminist section, and I promise my tone is not aggressive or sarcastic.

Ok, so what I am asking is, given this is a subsection of mumsnet for feminist issues/discussion etc, and given you don?t ascribe to being feminists or identifying with them, why do you post in here? I really am asking whats in it for you? I really don?t understand why any woman would feel the need to come onto the feminist section to be anything other than supportive to the feminist principles. After all, feminism as a movement can only BENEFIT women. Why wouldn?t that be something you are for?

Thanks in advance if y?all take the time to respond.

but TSH, homeless men form such a tiny minority of men as a group. so the fact there are homeless men does not negate that men are as a whole, the most privaledged group.

whereas, the number of raped women ISNT a tiny minority of the female group.

although i hesitate to compare homelessness, with rape, what i am trying to say is that the percentages of disatvantaged men as a whole compared to that of women, shows men to be the more privaledged group.

the numbers simply dont add up to equal abuses suffered by both groups.

can you at least agree to that?

your comparing homelessness with rape??? that's no where near the same thing.

In general males experience more violence and more likely to be murdered than females.

It's not some competition whatever the gender violence is wrong.

TSH,I don't agree with circumcision,but I don't think it is in any way comparable to female genital mutilation in terms of the wide ranging after effects.Perhaps you can give me evidence to show how circumcision adversely impacts men's quality of life,but the only link I remember reading is with a lower cancer risk...

I really don't care who perpetrates the violence just because a man gets attacked by someone of his own gender does not make it ok. I also don't see how just being male suddenly means they can defend themselves people come in all shapes and sizes.

As for circumcision no it's not comparable to FGM but that does not make it right. Circumcision does not have any distinct advantages the main reasons it is done are due to religion and for America simply because it's the norm.

Dittany i find your view interesting you say war as though violence is only perpetrated towards females and as though all males are combatants in arms.

TheShriekingHarpy,

I was interested to read in your post that complications can arise from too litlle foreskin being removed during male circumcision. I don't see how too little skin removed is different from no skin removed as far as complications is concerned. Any thoughts?

TSH, this may not mean to be how you come across but it does sound rather as though you are saying because men also suffer from discrimination, women should shut up about their own issues.

I have no problem whatsoever with men deciding that they want to change things for themselves or starting a movement to improve equality between the sexes. I just don't want to discuss men's issues particularly myself in the context of a feminist discussion as it would derail the feminist discussion itself.

Feminist spaces tend to be the only places where women can talk about female issues without having to justify themselves - I think that should be respected and understood for what it is.

I have had a lot of discussions with a lot of feminists and I have never come across the 'supremacist' type feminist you refer to or anybody who has had anything 'systematically drummed into them'. There may well be women like this but I have never come across them on MN.

Feminist views often make people feel uncomfortable because they question the status quo. Feminist views also have to be thought about from a position of questioning the current situation in order not to be misinterpreted. I find it is often people who fail to achieve this who get a bit stuck in their thinking and opposition of the areas of feminism which are often only pointing out the bleedin' obvious.

When women are having a discussion about say how much pressure is put on women with regards to their appearance, and somebody comes along and says 'yeah but that happens to men too', I don't think 'oh well let's just shut up then'. I think 'holy fuck things are getting really bad in this crazy world of consumerism - about time the men get themselves sorted out and did something for themselves'. I then think 'mmm but they will need to relinquish some male privilege if they want equality - I can't quite see that happening'.

Women cannot sort out men's issue for them, and nor should they have to sort out men's issues before they are allowed to sort out their own. Novel concept I know considering we are so used to being in the position of looking after the needs of others.

BC - exactly. I don't see anyone on here saying that only women suffer discrimination, but, as you say, this is a feminist space and I don't see why I should justify supporting women when on here, I spend my life doing that elsewhere....

beachcomber

yes, TSH I can see how that point of mine is contentious and I have to tell you not many feminists agree with me on that point. In fact it is directly related to that trans argument I've just had. IF you understood my argument on the trans thread you'd know that one of my main points was how lives shouldn't be constrained by the sex a person happens to have been born into. Some women believe we should eliminate the differences between the sexes.
I am one of the people who thinks that might be a little naive in the long run, and will probably not work out well for women. HUmans are mammals and males and females are different. That doesn't mean males and females have to behave in a particular way i.e males = masculine, females= feminine. I am fighting against that.

I don't understand how men can be 'pivotal to the emancipation of women' when all baby girls are all born free and equal to baby boys. I would say patriarchy conspires to constrain those little girls' lives from the moment they were born.
But little girls are most definitely born free.

Patriarchy and the men-pleaser-women who pander to patriarchy too, of course.

Sakura - I understand what you mean when you say that patriarchy conspires to constrain women's lives. But I'm not sure I see that as meaning that all men as individuals conspire to do so. And one would assume that its those very men who have no patriarchal axe to grind who would be "so pivotal to the emancipation of women".

I don't see it as so different from saying that white racism activists worldwide had a role to play in black emancipation from slavery, apartheid etc. Or indeed, that my voice makes a difference when I choose to protest about the rights of workers in factories in which I will probably never set foot. The argument being that just because they are not one of us (or I one of them) doesn't mean that their voice cannot play a role and have some power.

I am aware that some feminists, however, think I am anti-feminist for believing that.

No I agree that individual men don't. But men-as-a-group do.

It's not exactly true that white racism activists helped with black emancipation from slavery. White history has been rewritten to make it look that way by over-emphasizing the relevance of the odd document written by a white male, but one of the main reasons slavery was abolished was ecomonic. And that is exactly the same reason why women were 'allowed' to work: because it flooded the labour force with cheap labour.

But surely if individial men don't all conspire, it follows that individual men can play a role.

I always struggle with the sense that great leaps forward only happen as a result of selfish actions. Are we so bound by our own sense of self that we cannot act for the greater good of others? If so, why would that not be true for women?

Personally, I don't see the selfish action in wanting to buy my clothes from a factory where people are oppressed and work in bonded slavery. Or in wanting farmers in rural India to recieve a fair price for their crops. So if that's true, how can we assume that any action from men to the "advantage" of women must always spring from selfish rather than altruistic sources?

I think individual men regard the women in their lives as equals, but they don't "see" women's view of the world. David Cameron is trying to protect rapists because he feels sorry for the odd man who might be wrongly accused, however remote that possibility may be. WOmen, OTOH cannot believe he wants to put so many women in danger.
I'm sure he treats his wife and the other women in his life well. It's just that powerful groups have a mental 'block' when it comes to 'the other'.

Thnking a bit more about this, the other factor is that some men only listen to other men, and tend to see women as whiny, shrill and complaining, yet when the same POV is put forward by a man, it suddenly finds an audience, is listened to and acted on. I've seen it happen in the workplace, boardroom, even whilst giving birth in the hosiptal.

It horrifies me and yet I have no problem at all turning it to my own advantage to get things done. Once my own agenda (I'm talking workplace here) is being acted on, it them becomes much easier to push more and more through, and suddently I have a voice, people are starting to listen because part of that agenda is promoting more women who are capable but overlooked, you start to see more women in positions of power, they are more likely to listen to other women, and it becomes self-perpetuating. Wrong? Maybe. Practical? Definitely.

I think the way trans activists are working so successfully to make their voice heard shows that they are by far the more powerful group compared to radical feminists.