Can men be feminists?

[Vivacia]

Inspired by another thread!

I've just read the claim that men can never really be feminists. I disagree. Would be fascinated, and grateful, to read others' thoughts on this.

yonic you will be assimilated

Sorry yes I meant family.

Was trying to think of practical ways to try to get men to not initially see all women as an object to be shagged.

I guess there is a range of reasons, from a wholly patriachal view i.e. the men believing they are responsible for them (their ego/honour which I guess you are concerned with Vivacia) to actually seeing them as a person. I would hazard a guess thought that its more the former.

Is the temptation to exclude men from feminism likely to slow progress or speed it up?

If the objective is equality shouldn't gender be irrelevant to the feminist label?

(Perhaps this has all been covered on this post and I'm not reading or perhaps I'm just in a corner on my own having my own discussion?)

Have you read the thread MN164 ?

Was trying to think of practical ways to try to get men to not initially see all women as an object to be shagged.

That is so depressing, Breaking that you think we need practical ways to do this. However I think you're seriously wrong to suggest that the practical way of doing this is to say, "Look this woman belongs to a man out there somewhere".

Also, I'm worried you seem to think that feminism is opposing slights.

madwomanbackintheattic wrote - "I've been watching the feminist awakening of a male friend. It's fascinating, and mirrors almost exactly the 'new' feminist musings of women on here. "

One common difference between the feminist awakening men and the women is the realisation that a woman's partner could be playing his part, however unwillingly or subconsciously, in her oppression.

Feminism for men is a "walk in the park" compared to feminism for women.

whats mn164 - is that for me to look at?

Im not sure what your saying Vivacia by my comment being depressing? That you don't agree with my observation or that that is what the female gender is up against?

I feel like you arguing the same end of the stick here, obviously associating them as them belonging to a man is wrong, but I sometimes think you might need a step in between to get some buy-in to the idea, as you may not get the jump you wish in one go.

Again not sure why your worried 'about slights' (by which I meant objectifying sexually or treating differently to co-workers) - I thought feminism would be opposed to this?

If men within men are objectifying women less, then would you get some trickle down?

Are posting to try to keep this thread going to explore how to get men more involved.

Not read all 184 posts but have read quite a bit of it. Hence my upfront acknowledgement that perhaps my questions have already been answered.

I'll get my coat.

BreakingDad77

Ideally men would get more involved by listening, understanding and then adjusting their behaviour to fit the feminist ideal.

That's a tall order for men that aren't receptive to change, especially where it might reduce their position of advantage.

I'd encourage men to read Everyday Sexism by Laura Bates or go an see her speak at a lecture.

Are posting to try to keep this thread going to explore how to get men more involved.

I feel as though I'm still posting on this thread explaining what should be obvious.

Ok, telling men, "Don't see women as objects because they too belong to a man out there" as a good stepping stone is something we disagree on. I don't think it's a good stepping stone.

"Slights" is not a word that I think describes the social, political, economic oppression that women experience. It's not a good word to summarise abuse, harassment, sexual and physical injury. Women are raped and beaten and killed due to misogyny.

minklundy

I think we are agreeing on the "two to tango" idea.

Vivacia

I think I agree with the notion that feminism must include men as part of the "solution" - you need men to surrender patriarchy for success and this can't be achieved by the oppressed on their own.

On that basis, feminism does need to "engage" men to get them to understand and change. This can be done in a number of ways. Often men are attacked, criticised, berated, forcefully corrected, patronised or just plain shouted at. Whilst there is every reason to take this approach, it isn't effective, in my opinion. Men simply switch off.

My view is that where there is willing to understand only positive encouragement should be employed. It will be grating as the conversation will be peppered with mansplaining, implicit privilege and downright obstinance.

I'm probably far too soft.

On that basis, feminism does need to "engage" men to get them to understand and change. This can be done in a number of ways...

...by women behaving and communicating in a way that men dictate? Perhaps that's not what you mean, but it's so fucking exhausting sometimes.

'Engaging' with your oppressors? Is that really the way to liberation? As Vivacia points out that invariably leads to engagement on their terms. Worrying about the feelings of men? That isn't any sort of liberation.

I'm not too fussed about engaging with men, especially not with randomers on the internet. I'll engage with men I know IRL on feminist issues but I'd rather engage with women for mutual consciousness raising and political action. I CBA putting everything through a filter of "what will men think about this?" If men want women to do that, that's not exactly supportive of feminism, is it? If men say, "well if you're going to be like that, I will withdraw my support of feminism" that is privileged behaviour and I wouldn't want anything to do with a prick man like that.

Vivacia - why would it be obvious to all men?

Are you assuming all men are homogenious intellectuals and they are going to be won over with literature reviews and well written prose?

Racism should be simple to fix but we haven't, has just been driven out of plain sight and festers on the internet.

My brother over time has morphed into a terrible misogynist, we both had the same upbringing, we barely talk any more because I'm sick of the comments he makes on my relationship and family, I'm under the thumb etc how 'Alpha' he is, shags only count if they under size 10, and how women flock to him now hes 'juiced', compared to previously, how his colleagues fawn over him.

He isn't stupid he had previously studied law (though does not work in this sphere), he at the time recanted to me lots of cases of some pretty terrible treatment of women and seem to agreed that it was bad etc, but now has turned into something else.

Vivacia how do you reach out to someone like that?

My view is that where there is willing to understand only positive encouragement should be employed. It will be grating as the conversation will be peppered with mansplaining, implicit privilege and downright obstinance.

I would agree with this, though could be neutral also, as negativity will just lead to the men your trying to reach using this as validation of feminism = man hating.

Vivacia - why would it be obvious to all men?

I wasn't addressing all men, I was addressing posters on here who should read more than they write. At least, that's what I do because I still have much to learn.

There isn't a great track record of the oppressed freeing themselves of oppression without sustainable co-operation from the oppressors.

Unfortunately it's often "western white privileged men" that are the "oppressors" in history and it's very rare that the oppressed class has been "freed" without their co-operation. Of course there is plenty of female oppression all round the world, but I'm only able to refer to history I have a passing knowledge of:

• universal voting suffrage (e.g. English history - non-landlords and women votes "given" by parliament of male aristocracy)
• freedom of religious belief (e.g. US independence from tyranny of English churches, founded by white privileged men)
• slavery (US history and revolution but still a war between white men)
• racial equality (governments passing laws on equality dominated by men)

In the end it was the oppressors that needed to "give up" oppressing. The oppressed can make a lot of noise and raise awareness but they can't "give up being oppressed".

Is that depressing?

BreakingDad can you really not see why it is depressing for women to have to 'engage' with men why they should view us as fully human?

But they haven't engaged with the oppressors on their terms. In all those cases there was conscious-raising, protests, campaigning. Not listening and engaging with the oppressors rubbish about how they can't give us equality at the moment due to x y z.

Men haven't granted us the in roads we've made. Women have fought for it.

We had centuries of being nice to men, telling them how it was on their terms and that didn't get us any where. We organised and protested and campaigned against the inequalities and that has a provided some movement. At no point have men 'engaged' with feminism.

Sorry that last post was to MN164.

Breaking, I wouldn't engage with him, any more than I would someone who made hate-filled comments about gay people or black people.

Someone who, by analogy, said "yeah, I shoved him over getting to the bar last night but he was gay so it doesn't count as shoving a person, ha ha" would be unlikely to listen to a nice mild argument from a gay guy as to why he counted as a full person, would he?

It's saying to women, if only you behaved a little bit differently men will see the errors of their ways and behold we'll have liberation.

Never. Going. To. Happen.

Women won't be able to give up being oppressed but they can fight for liberation.