What do men think feminists should be focusing their energies on?

[PetulaGordino]

It's pretty clear that there are many men with constructive criticism to offer feminists in terms of what feminist issues they should be focusing their energies, activism and outrage on.

This vital advice is at risk of being lost, spread as it is among myriad threads in this section. Perhaps it would be a good idea to collect it together into one thread, for ongoing reference when posters in this section consider their feminist activities and whether they are really focusing on the right issues.

Obviously it should be borne in mind that feminists are only able to focus strictly on one topic at a time in terms of activism and outrage, so don't overload us with too many issues at once!

King's been around a while, Puffins.

King, if you think of recognise in the way of statecraft eg the island of Sodor does not recognise the islet of Sodand as an independent state, that might help?

Yes knicker, I understand.

Knicker...Sadly, I know he's been around a while... was just wondering why he wanted to butt in on a comment I made to Magnetic though.... seemed odd.

FloraFox

I apologise for calling you a TERF. I can understand how a label that might be factually accurate can be turned into a tool for bullying - 'retarded' on a diagnosis is different to retarded in the playground - I genuinely had no intention of being pejorative.

With regards to the image presented I am torn. On the one hand, sexual dimorphism obviously exists (as stated in the article provided) and obviously has an impact on our perspectives - the reported effect of testosterone on the libido and sexual attitudes of physically female users, either transitioning or experimenting, is absolutely fascinating and correlates intriguingly with lived/reported male experience. On the other hand, how much of the interpretation of that effect is socialised, and how do we account for those who experience similar behavioural trends without hormonal intervention?

Simply put, I don't think there is enough data for an opinion on that image to be anything other than ideologically derived. As such, that image is very like the term TERF - possibly factual, but mostly used as a means to offend others.

To end this derail (the thread is about opinions on your movement, not my ideology) that is another thing I think would enormously improve feminism - a massive focus on the intersection between biology, sociology and psychology. I'm aware that work does go on in this area, but the response mainstream feminism to any research in this area appears to be overwhelmingly negative (not to say that most of the studies we hear about aren't total rubbish, but still).

Well this thread is educational.

Sorry puffin I didn't mean to but in. It just struck me as a really odd thing to write. Maybe I missed the context around the killing people statement.

"Focus on biology, sociology and psychology."

What would that look like?

To my mind, a core premise of feminism springs from the distinct treatment of child bearing humans and non child bearing humans, over the years (and the allocation of girls and infertile or childless women to the former group, regardless)

That's basically what Cordleia Fine does. And, by and large, we like her on here.

a label that might be factually accurate

It is not factually accurate although it certainly is perjoritive. It is nonsensical. Firstly, "Trans Exclusive" - what does that even mean? Who is being excluded from what? Secondly, I would never use an identification for my feminist beliefs that starts off with a position on men. No other labels for strands of feminism do this. Thirdly, although I share a number of beliefs with RFs, I'm not sure RFs would think I am one. However the term TERF is thrown around without regard for whether the target is even a RF to start off.

The image I posted does not try to determine whether personality traits are innate or conditioned. It does say that "innate" does not come from biological sex. Since you seem proud of your GF's non-conforming gender role, I assume you agree that the innate part of personality does not come from sex. Or is your GF not female? Very few feminists would say social conditioning does play a part. Many feminists (including me) think it is a combination of the two. The image simply states that whether innate or socially conditioned, human personality is almost infinitely variable and not associated with sex (which exists). You seem to agree. Congratulations, you're a TERF.

Very few feminists would say social conditioning does not play a part

Well said Flora.

Slug

I would LOVE it if she came on, but she doesn't like internet forums and REALLY doesn't like MN. Not because of any bad reports from me, I might add, but because after reading it for a year or two I became convinced I didn't want children. The emotional fallout has colored her opinion, sadly.

We discuss gender issues and social issues of all kinds in great detail and sometimes research things together. We debate on all sorts of points and I feel that I can honestly represent her position in her stead. If I feel that I cannot, I will not and will say so - but I understand your concern. I am not a man stealing her voice or lying about her beliefs (or existence).

BreakingDad

Not in the slightest. Most are convinced she's a lesbian who enjoys flirting as a joke. Her tendency to actually date women on occasion might have helped this. The rest of the time she's an honorary man who happens to also have a 'female' perspective.

Oh yes, cool girls are also bisexual for mens amusement. I forgot that one, another way in which my GF feels the movement doesn't recognise her personhood.

LurcioAgain

My girlfriend doesn't deliberately want to be separated from feminism, she feels it is separating itself from her and is therefore dishonest in stating that its a movement for all women. I get what you're saying, that some people don't see oppression because it doesn't effect them directly and that it's possible for apparent fairness to be deceptive, but actually she agrees with most of feminism's precepts* and stated objectives - she just feels the movement pursues them badly and doesn't have a place for her within it.

She's not alone in this, by the way, I'm just using her as an example because I can accurately report as to her personality, beliefs and motivations and she says that many people of similar behaviour and character feel a similar way.

• though I had to convince her that actually feminism wasn't opposed to stay-at-home-mothers and in fact supports the recognition and recompense of paid and unpaid caring activities mostly done by women. It was one reason she was previously opposed to feminism rather than just aggressively unconcerned.

The rest of the time she's an honorary man who happens to also have a 'female' perspective.

Erm ... where exactly is the 'honour' in that?

Oh yes, cool girls are also bisexual for mens amusement. I forgot that one, another way in which my GF feels the movement doesn't recognise her personhood.

Huh? I don't follow what you think the movement is or isn't recognizing. Shitloads of us are bisexual. Probably for our own amusement, don't you think?

"aggressively unconcerned"

Thanks FO

Meph it sounds like you and your GF are combining everything you don't like about every type of feminism and rejecting every type of feminism on that basis.

You used the term "cool girl". Lurcio pointed out above why that term is pejorative. We don't know what beliefs your GF has that categorise her in this way. From what you've described, apart from not liking feminists, she seems like a normal person, although I don't know what you mean by "honorary man" or "female perspective".

There are lots of bisexual women on this board. I believe the general consensus is that they are persons.

feminism by definition supports the notion that all women are different. therefore there are going to be women who feel feminism isn't for them (aggressively so or not) and that is normal and to be expected. however, i am going to defend the feminists i know and love from accusations that are patently untrue

It's odd House isn't it? I can drive this (the truck, not the horse) and have no problem parking it. Is that a "feminist gender role"? Or does it make me a "cool girl"? Or a man, honorary or otherwise?

There is something rather creepy about a bloke speaking in such fundamental and personal terms on behalf of his female partner

if this was reversed she would be laughed off with "did he tell you that after you made him a sandwich ?"

use your own voice, with your own opinions....It just sounds like you are hijacking someone else's and fitting them to your rather weak arguments

Thank goodness this thread has become a discussion about how feminazis turned my girlfriend off feminism by not appreciating her.

Excellent.

Ouch, that's really hurtful

Some women (actually, probably all women at one point or another) do things to please men or a man rather than themselves.

Feminists, on the whole, see this as a survival strategy that they wish was unnecessary.

None of that precludes bisexuality or rock climbing or cupcake making or any damn thing if that thing pleases the woman herself.

It wasn't feminists who invented the charming phrase "lipstick lesbian" y'know.

Did you know that taking candy from a baby is actually very difficult? They did it on Mythbusters.

AF I was thinking the same thing.

AKnickerfulOfMenace

What would that look like?

Like a bunch of kittens with PHDs and the biggest tangle of wool the world has ever seen. It would be a multidisciplinary research project that would require huge funding, enormous debate and access to just about every major piece of scientific equipment the world has ever produced short of the Supercollider.

But imagine - not just to feel what it is to be human from one subjective perspective, but to say - yes, this is human and that is society, and here is where one becomes other. Not just feeling, but knowing. I can't imagine a more worthy epiphany to be labelled as enlightenment.

FloraFox

"Trans Exclusive" - what does that even mean? Who is being excluded from what?

Women's rights, such as they are? It seemed pretty clear to me, but as I said, I cannot discuss trans issues as I know no people within that category from whom I can learn first hand.

And I am not a feminist, and choose not to exclude trans-people from my ideology. I think the label fits me even more poorly than yourself.

I have been known to wrestle a chocolate button or two from them pesky little blighters

Hogging all the choc-choc....it's just selfish