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

Every time you give a sexist or a misogynist the idea that you agree with him by not speaking up against him, you are actively hindering the progress towards equality.

Just so you know.

"Kickass, I think the best thing men can do is back off and not hinder women's move towards equality. It's your fight, and only you will know when you have got there."

Or men could actually actively support said moves towards equality? In particular by not standing passively by when other men say or do sexist and/or mysogynist things? I'm white and straight, but I don't leave the fight against racism or hompphobiq to black people and gay people.

"It's like, Let's go on there and talk shit for no reason and then when something does actually matter let's not talk cos there's no point ???"

There it is in a nutshell.

So to sum up ...

1. listen to us
2. support us

That's not complicated is it?

Also, when men come onto FWR threads that isn't a passive act. It is active, it is intentional, and it has consequences.

Stand up and be counted, please.

I'm disappointed to see so many men hiding behind the curtains whispering, 'I didn't understand the rules,' 'I didn't mean anything by it,' 'I'll be off, then,' etc.

kickassangel - I'm not denying that I've experienced sexism myself, but it doesn't follow that all women experience the same level or women automatically can understand other women better than men could.

E.g. I've no idea what it's like to live in a culture where FGM is normal, I don't know what it's like to be forced into an arranged marriage, I live a pretty privileged middle class middle income experience, am relatively successful in my job. I've never had an unwanted pregnancy or abortion.

I don't think that should keep me from having an opinion on matters which affect less privileged women or speaking out if i think something that doesn't directly affect me is wrong. Why should men be different in that context?

Lots of women never have an unwanted pregancy or an abortion but they live within conditions (biological, social, cultural) that make it possible for it to happen, or indeed not to happen. They live lives where the potential becomes part of the fabric.

WW, you can have an opinion on those things that affect other, less privileged women than you, but if you meet them, would you explain to them what their situation is and tell them their perception of it is wrong and you understand it better than them, or would you listen to them and ask them how you can support them (if supporting them is something you think is a good idea)?

I have no idea what it is like to grow up black in this racist society. So I will listen to my black sisters who know better than me because I only know it theoretically but they live it, and I hope to learn from them because I recognise they can teach me more about racism than I can teach them.

But the thread is called a question for the men here.

Otherwise I'd never have posted.

Very bizarre. But I'll still stick up for Pan he did nothing wrong.

Some of the comments are verging on anti man.

Obviously not your Nigel.

Which comments Daddelion?

Could you highlight the anti man comments? I haven't seen any- but I have been looking through my woman-goggles.

I don't think Pan did anything wrong- apart from being a bit "look at me" possibly. But he didn't do anything right either.

fastidia, to go back to what we were talking about, are there any studies on girls and boys being socialised to listen differently?

I've only ever seen studies done into speaking.

I'm not out to goad you Daddelion.

If you say that some of the posts have been anti-men and then you refuse to specify which ones, it makes you sound as if you are simply goading rather than participating in the discussion, d'you see?

I may have been rude to you (though only once from memory) but that's not an indicator of being anti-men per se, it's just an indicator of being anti-you.

I don't for one moment believe that you are representative of all men as I'm sure you don't believe that I'm representative of all women.

Interesting question Seeker, I remember reading sth about how men don't listen to women - hence the phenomenon of a woman saying sth in a meeting, everyone ignoring it, then a man saying it 2 minutes later and everyone enthusiastically acknowledging it.

But off the top of my head I couldn't point you to any specific studies.

(I also remember reading sth about how when men and women are told to listen to a group of men and women in a mixed group, both men and women wildly over-estimate the amount of talking done by women - so if women speak for 35% of the time for example, they're estimated to have dominated the meeting, but again, can't remember who or what the study was off the top of my head.)

Sorry, I mean Linerunner.

From observation, men and women do listen very differently. But I've never seen a study of it. Masters thesis, anyone?

fastidia, yes, those are the same two observations that I'm aware of.

Seeker, I would so like to design some of those experiments!

Oh all right then, couldn't resist a quick google. None of these are what I remember reading about, but they all look interesting.

io9.com/5944493/do-women-speak-less-when-when-there-are-more-men-around

www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/gender_and_social_influence.pdf

www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/

www.interruptions.net/literature/Smith-Lovin-AmerSocRev89.pdf

This thread has been like wrestling an octopus like many such threads.

Ultimately futile and exhausting.

I have reluctantly concluded that men cannot engage with Feminism and Feminism does not want to engage with men. It is a political movement and like all political movements it seeks a 'divide' to define itself. For example, the Labour Party defines itself as the party of the poor and defines the rich as the enemy of the poor. Likewise Feminism is a party of women and defines men as the enemy of women.

It is the reason many men call Feminists 'man haters' and why many women feel they can't engage because they don't see men as an 'enemy' even though they are deeply affected by the issues that Feminists campaign about.

namechangeguy - I dont agree entirely agree with you but I can see where you are coming from. I think men can engage with individual issues such as equal pay. We can't engage with Feminism though even if we agree with its aims - we are the wrong side of the 'divide'.

How Feminism deals with that issue is not for us to say. It is not our political movement.

But would you oppose feminism, MoreBeta? Would you stand by and say nothing if you saw men opposing feminism?

I think Daddelion expressed something important when he asked in apparently sincere puzzlement why any man would want to be down with the chickz on an internet forum.
('Why would anyone want to be down with the chickz on an anonymous Internet site? it shows to me that is what they'd do or they have a poor opinion of men.')

I think Pan's answer to Hully's excellent question (B) and Daddelion's above is that even here with anonymity guaranteed men are still unwilling to disturb the solidarity among men by appearing to side with the 'other' and changing the male conversation. So far, that has been the gist of his remarks and I think his stance has been fairly typical.

I think to a large extent the men are engaged in a dynamic of their own that has absolutely nothing to do with women at all, a completely separate conversation from the one the women are engaged in here. There is on many levels, mostly poorly thought out, mostly at the level of knee-jerk reaction, a refusal to accept the terms of the discourse. It is a male bonding exercise to a much greater extent than it is an attempt to engage in a conversation. There is no other explanation possible on a thread where no man stood up to challenge a man who very vocally argued on behalf of the sexual exploitation of women, essentially the availability of their sexuality for a price, to men, and for a profit to other men. Many of the men here have stated that they are fathers. Of girls even. Yet, illogically, the male bonding impulse trumped all others -- the impulse of intellect, even of morality.

You rarely see resort to accusations of personal attack when the matter in hand is 'On A Scale Of 1-10 How Much Of A Sorry Arse Is Nick Clegg And How Many Seats Will The LibDems <a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkrn4fuElE1qjjck0o1_500.jpg&imgrefurl=nickclegglookingsad.tumblr.com/post/5239714059&h=291&w=450&sz=21&tbnid=86vmSj5_k6W5OM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=139&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dnick%2Bclegg%2Blooking%2Bsad%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=nick+clegg+looking+sad&usg=__xNZhIajDxYDa4oO6PyXXd5kyPm4=&docid=dDnh3CTbCK24kM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2rMOUZaPN-XX2QX06oHYCA&ved=0CFIQ9QEwCA&dur=16858" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Lose Next Time?' or even whether the UK should leave the EU, and there are other hot button questions that are debated without men needing to band together this way, or make a show of taking comments personally, or thank each other for their support as men regardless of political affiliation or socio economic status which happens on this board a lot. The effect of the bonding is to set up a polarity, not to engage. I think the NI analogy is apt.

If men wish to be involved in feminist discourse then they must accept that part of that discourse is going to involve issues like Hully's (B) above 'They don't have any solidarity and won't speak up for the women that are here.' Getting to the bottom of that would be a real step in the right direction, and I am talking about real life progress here. Internet abuse of women and the silencing of women in the public square (I am including all media here), often by use of language that is vile and violent and hate-filled (see Mary Beard episode) is real life hate expressed on a screen. It is every bit as real as discrimination in the workplace or the crime of rape.

All this stuff about what Pan did or didn't do has nothing to do with me. I wasn't here, so it isn't something I was referring to. I am trying to stick to the OP, and to find out what the other men here think that they bring to any FWR discussions. I don't want to be drawn in to personal squabbles.

Morebeta, agreed about the individual issues thing, and the 'being on the outside' point.

I agree with the OP - we have nothing to add. So, I have learned something.

"Likewise Feminism is a party of women and defines men as the enemy of women."

Oh dear, you so need to do the reading.

You have been around these boards for long enough to know that that's a load of crap so I can only conclude it's a deliberate wind-up.