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

The political party 'hatred' analogy doesn't go a long way. All 'successful parties have a 'broad church' ( they have to in order to garner enough support to exist) and so the ability to relate to other members of political parties is much broader than a simple 'hatred' question. It's too deterministic and doesn't reflect the ebb and flow of ideas.

Whole other thread, Mini.

But to me, the patriarchy has arisen throughout history, starting probably from a bias of physical strength to put men above women, moving on as we gained a concept of property to make it important to bind women to their husbands to "guarantee" parentage and inheritance, helped along by a nice bit of sexual shame from the Church. The effects of power snowball and snowball and are self-justified by "science" - we tested some girls and some boys and the girls were smarter, it's the natural way of things - excluding any allowance for education, expectations etc. just as 100 years ago or less, you could find similar tests on race-based lines to justify discrimination.

Patriarchy is a system, like class is a system. We all live in it, we all uphold it to a greater or lesser extent, we all fight it to a greater or lesser extent. Patriarchy =/= men, though men benefit most from it (and sometimes lose out too); equally, the class system =/= the rich, though the rich benefit most from it.

We've probably got as many definitions of the patriarchy as we have got regular posters on FWR.

math - I have been told several times and quite forcibly on MN that men cannot be Feminists because we are not women. There is the divide.

I have also been told many times that Feminism is a political movement.

I now agree with both of those statements and I didnt used to.

Don't worry though, I am not against Feminism or what it wants to achieve.

Sure, the misplaced symmetry thing is what MNHQ are doing when they keep fucking up on this board, but why? Is it a sort of privileged-women-don't-need feminism thing, so they don't really get it? (though MC women of their age would never be explicitly anti-feminist, they don't really get feminism often, through a sort of "what's the problem / let them eat cake" sort of blinkeredness - allied with a kind of real world savvy as opposed to analytic intelligence that believes in the existence of something called "over thinking" and thinks it is a bad thing)

The other possibility,which infuriates me in some of my best friends, is something to do with a very well intentioned over-attachment to liberal ideals without noticing that they are all about a privileged group offering largesse to the non-privileged through a sort of noblesse oblige, without noticing that when these conventions are adopted by a non-privileged group, they amount to shooting oneself in the foot
don't think it's that though

Part of the problem of the writing of the origins of patriarchy has been that the archaeological establishment that tends to control the narrative has itself been highly patriarchal, especially within academia/prehistory.

< I suspect that could be over-simplifying MBs post - if it is I am apologising.>
Doctrine - sounds like a working definition to me, fwiw. I think capitalism provides a further sheen, or dynamic to pre-existing oppressive systems tho'.

I do find this baffling. I am not black- but I can still be anti racist. I am not gay, but I can still be anti homophobic. And campaign accordingly.

Why can't men campaign against sexism and mysogyny?

curryeater I recall noticing in academia in the 1990s, that just as gendered narratives were being convincingly argued as the norm, and not merely specialist off-shoots of a discipline, suddenly there a this big surge of 'post-modernist theory' and the accompanying suggestion that all random voices are equal.

Thus, my gendered nuanced narrative, based painstakingly on evidence and couched within a philosophy that gender mattered, was now deemed only ever as important as the default patriarchal twaddle that had lazily gone before.

seeker I really do want men to oppose sexism and mysogyny.

I also would very much like them to stand up to the men who oppose feminism. If they are not going to, I suppose I wonder what they are on FWR for.

I know what patriarchy is, thank you although many feminists have located its origins in different places in history and located it within family or institutions.

TheDoctrineOfSciAndNatureClub

The reason I ask is because right wing politics and feminism make very uneasy bedfellows. Do you want equality with men? Which men? Do you bourgeois women to have equality with bourgeois men? if so you you will not have equality with all women, you will be more equal than others.

seeker interesting question. It depends on what you mean by 'campaign'. Organise stuff? Actively pamphleteer from door to door? Go on demos? Write to your MP? Change things in your work place. Or just feel/think something isn't right. I don't know.
Over the years I've done those things. Men can, and ime of me and others, do/have done those things. We aren't all 'hold precious values but do nothing about them' merchants.

I agree, line runner. That's why I don't understand when they say they can't, because they aren't women.

Well, the answer obv is 'yes they can' seeker and LR. I'd not support any male around here who says "I can't because I am male". It's a massive bit of a cop out.

It's been quite an eye-opener, seeker. I'm reminded of the political joke, 'We will offer you all assistance short of actual help.'

In this case the message seems to be, 'We will fight sexism - but if we see other men oppose feminism and attack feminists, you're on your own.'

But you don't speak up when other men are expressing mysogynist or sexist views?

Even just to say "I say, old chap- bit strong- what?"

Me, seeker? Yes I do. V often in RL ( sometimes in extremely trying circumstances when it really isn't 'safe' to do so) and v often on here as well.

MB -- I think not being against feminism or what it seeks to achieve is a good thing. (sincerely)

As a man of good will, is that enough for you? What circumstance might help you to identify as a feminist and/or actively challenge the views of men or women who disparage feminism, disparage the aims of feminism, or promote an agenda such as the sexual exploitation of women?

(Again it is interesting to see you draw lines around -isms, and I have this conversation regularly with DS btw)

MiniTheMinx, at the risk of sounding like an unreconstructed Marxist, you have a point. However, it is to be hoped the nature of the feminist discourse would have a 'rising tide raises all boats' effect as time goes on. The trend towards consciousness raising tends to leads to questioning of the status quo across the board.

Pan -- did Mary Beard's experience happen IRL or online?

On here, pan? That's good. Let me know next time and I'll come and watch!

math - v probably both, but more noted on-line. Not sure why you ask?
seeker - I'll try to orchestrate it. Just for you!

I ask because I have difficulty understanding the distinction you make between online experience and RL experience.

I'd rather be a unreconstructed Marxist than a constipated Marxist

Having stuck with this thread from the start and saying that I thought men should engage and that learning should be an active process rather than passive, I am beyond despair. First we have men saying, woe is me....I feel unwelcome, then we have male bonding, passive aggressive acts against women and finally special pleading for dropping pamphlets.

What is so blatantly obv is that you get just one man on his own and he'll do and say virtually anything to please, get more than one and then the male bonding starts. Which rather proves the point that men only want female approval if that prize can be wafted under the nose of his adversary (bonding buddy) to gain respect and prestige from other men.

I'm not sure I have made that distinction, for me? One big difference, generally, is that we can all be brave when typing things, but body-swerve issues in RL. So the accountability is different. Living your values is easier OL, I guess, but only you know if you actually live them.
That sounds messy but I hope you catch the drift. ( very 70's).

You know, and I could have missed it( I do leave Mumsnet occasionally) , I don't think I have ever seen a man challenge another man on sexism or mysogyny. To be honest, I've only seen it a couple of times in real life.