a question for the men here

[Mitchy1nge]

what makes you think you have anything of real value to bring to discussions about women's experiences and expectations?

obviously some men can make interesting contributions (although those sorts of men don't often announce themselves here) to some discussions but generally, on the whole, everything everywhere else is already pretty saturated in Male Voice so was just wondering where you got the idea from

Of course, I say 'our' not in any 'territorial' way, you understand.

Just that DD has chosen to lump certain other posters together with me, (we are just some 'feminist' masse to him), in his post.

I would like it to hear more from men bringing up sons not to be sexist, for example.

Glad I cracked you up - DD - that's what we're here for after all.

Still loving the stories about your wife's pubic hair

Never said you shouldn't be here Daddancer, you just bore me. I can read your opinions in any tabloid of choice on any day of the week, it's usually a bit more interesting than that on here.

Yes, mcmooncup. That's it exactly. V V boring.

Daddancer you have posted repeatedly on here about Lap Dancing Clubs and not a lot else. You say you and your wife go you both love it semi naked women are just part of the nice decor

You continually post anti-feminist comments on a feminist forum - fine. Nobody's actually denying you that - MN is open to everyone - but you wonder why people argue with you?

People have a right to reply - and your posts just sound like "misogynistic Daily Mail soundbite of the day" frankly.

The Telegraph is staffed by a number of ex-Daily Mail journalists.

I have no idea where I read it, but it made my Husband laugh when I told him,

'The Telegraph - The Daily Mail for people with O'Levels'

If it was a poster on MN, thanks for that, it made my day!

As a guilt ridden, liberal, lefty feminist, yes, you've guessed it, I read The Guardian. That's the Independent for people with PhD's.

But would any of the men go onto a thread about other political situations, e.g. The Tory national conference, and among a group of well read and informed conservatives, start telling them that they thought the definition of conservatives was wrong, that their own personal experience was just as valid and that there should be a different version of Tory politics that more people (ie non Tories) could subscribe to?

It's the lack of even seeing or accepting that there is a strong feminist political (and cultural social etc) movement, and trying to just wade in with a different pov, claiming that we should all pay attention to it.

Like SGM I think it's fairly obvious who is trying to genuinely engage and who isn't, but it displays a lack of knowledge and respect for the people who are having a discussion just to start trying to enforce a male view instead of listening to the discourse and know where it's coming from.

I don't want to be elitist, but I almost feel like there should be a sheet where people tick off which texts they've read so we have some idea of how much they understand or if they are just use personal pov.

I try not to barge into conversations where I know very little and start saying that this it this is important so everyone should listen to me, but on the feminist boards it seems as if having met and known a few women counts as being well informed. It's like the education boards where people who have never trained or taught start saying they opinions. Sending a kid to school isn't the same as doing a degree in education. Having a daughter isn't the same as having read feminist writings. This section isn't called "some of my best friends are women". It's about and for feminist discussion, ie often fairly serious and well informed discussions.

I think that there is a lack of sensitivity by some posters when they post here. They want to talk about women, not feminism. Those aren't the same discussions.

What a good idea SGM. I will join you in pretending that certain posts are hidden.

The imaginary Hide button is a great button, Norma.

I agree, SGM. If I come across a poster, male or female, posting repeatedly on a single subject but rarely anywhere else or about anything else, it does make me go "hmm", whether I use MN Advanved Search or, more often, my own personal version that I like to call "a memory".

I really don't understand why posts need to be hidden. It smacks as really controlling. What should be available is an "ignore poster" button so threads are not disrupted on an individual basis by posters someone has no interest in. A lot of boards have those. In any event, is it really that hard to just ignore someone?

The answer as to why men who are not "feminists" would post on this board whereas a Labour supporter would be unlikely to post on a Conservative board is an interesting one. I would certainly not seek out feminist spaces to post and this is the only feminist forum I ever frequent. Firstly, it is a subset of a parenting board and is linked to on the "discussions of the day" and "most active" sections. Secondly, the hosts claim that all are welcome as long as they obey certain rules. Finally, the posters are well (on the whole) well educated and interesting and it has certainly educated me and challenged my views in many areas. The validity of my participation is not dependent on me accepting 100% of the ideas expressed 100% of the time and one would hope that those entering a discussion would not only want to hear totally identical views to their own on every subject.

There must be hundreds of boards on feminism and female only spaces which are far less likely to attract men. I suspect many come on here because they enjoy being challenged, some because they enjoy discourse, others because they want privileged men to come and "abuse" their privilege to confirm their ideas of how bad the patriarchy is. The number of posts on any board where a man challenges the consensus demonstrated this. As I said above, if you really did not want this kind of participation, why do you keep, to phrase it in your own words, "feeding the trolls"?

YY Larry, agee with all your points.

Just in passing I post on other boards here at MN some are akin to the conservative analogy, but no I would not go out and find a board run by and completely inhabited by conservatives, or Jewish people, or particle physics experts, or indeed any place that is unwelcoming of debate. This thread and the trans threads showed that debate can still be had here even though the battle lines are quickly drawn up and seem to be like the trench system of ww1 pretty fixed and static.

Hopeful,

That is not very helpful!

I think that I speak for most of the men who post here when I say that we are feminists on the level of wanting life to be fair and women to have the same quality of life opportunities as men. Where we may disagree is what this actually means and whether women and men should always have identical lives and statistically identical outcomes in every field. On the other hand, I do believe that wealth in every sense (money and free time) should be equally divided between the sexes over their lifetimes. I would not post on this board if I did not believe that.

kickassangel
But would any of the men go onto a thread about other political situations, e.g. The Tory national conference, and among a group of well read and informed conservatives, start telling them that they thought the definition of conservatives was wrong, that their own personal experience was just as valid and that there should be a different version of Tory politics that more people (ie non Tories) could subscribe to?

Mmm. Possibly a poor example, as you've just described a Tory Party conference, particularly the fringe meetings.

Your general thrust is well taken, however.

I don't want to be elitist, but I almost feel like there should be a sheet where people tick off which texts they've read so we have some idea of how much they understand or if they are just use personal pov.

No, you are being elitist, but that's fine. I appreciate references to texts incidentally, and already read widely.

This section isn't called "some of my best friends are women". It's about and for feminist discussion, ie often fairly serious and well informed discussions

This is called chat and isn't an academic group...

This bit
It's like the education boards where people who have never trained or taught start saying they opinions. Sending a kid to school isn't the same as doing a degree in education.

Ah, so people shouldn't have opinions, neh?
I have no degree in education. I have an opinion on education in single-sex boarding schools from 8-18. Does a teacher, with a degree in education have a more valid opinion about those than I do? [FWIW, I was educated as above, and disapprove]

Most of the men who post here are not feminists. A few, maybe.

Genuinely feminist men recognise that they are speaking from a position of power and privilege, (playing the game on 'easy' setting, as it were) and do not try to dominate conversations within a group of women or tell women how to feel about things, or how to use this board. (That last one always makes me )

Kickassangel, I really liked your post.

One more chap, of course people can have opinions, but your personal experience doesn't override the centuries of teacher training or feminist discourse. I think it's that some posters see feminist chat as chatting about women rather than general chat about a political movement. There's a lack of recognition of the serious academic study as if feminism is some kind of hobby like flower arranging, which is incredibly wearing to be treated like that. On the feminist boards it should be assumed that we are discussing an academic and political subject, not that it's just an extension of chat. It's like invading the nanny staff room corner or something and not acknowledging that the regulars there have training and experience, but just chatting as a parent.

You can't always tell if a poster is male/female and they are the ones that are always all right because they come from a "human being" POV.

The ones that are instantly and evidently identifiable as male, however, have a little ol drum to beat whether they admit it or not. Otherwise why would we be made aware of their dingly-danglies at all?