Can a man teach feminism?

[lucydogz]

Reading the Guardian colour supp today, an article about gal dem quotes 2 young black women saying they were shocked, when taking a class on Feminism at Bristol university, that it was taken by white man.
Firstly, I see no relevance in his race. But why shouldn't a man teach Feminism?

Actually it is logical I’m not ignoring the law of the excluded middle I’m trying to highlight the consequence of this position. IF only women should teach feminism AND should be equally represented across all fields (equal representation I’m all for btw!) then the only way to square that circle is to take the position there should be more female academics than men. No one has explicitly stated this but it IS the logical outcome of that position.

You also run in to the problem that feminism could never be objectively true, if women are the only people can understand it, it can only be understood subjectively. This also lets us men off the hook as if we’re incapable of understanding the issues it’s a push for us to be responsible for our actions either! Which I’m not sure is quite the lean I’d take on it.

then the only way to square that circle is to take the position there should be more female academics than men. No one has explicitly stated this but it IS the logical outcome of that position.

And the problem with this is what exactly?

IF only women should teach feminism AND should be equally represented across all fields (equal representation I’m all for btw!) then the only way to square that circle is to take the position there should be more female academics than men

Well, yes, if there's a feminism course, then yes, just like there should be more historians teaching on a history course, more mathematicians for maths courses etc...

You also run in to the problem that feminism could never be objectively true, if women are the only people can understand it, it can only be understood subjectively

Not really - the vast majority of us are never going to understand advanced physics, or chemistry, doesn't make it subjectively true to only the people capable of understanding it....

In my opinion, men can only teach feminism to the extent that anyone can teach something from a textbook - ie. at a surface level - like a non-native speaker can teach you Spanish, but you have to go there and interact with native speakers to really get good at it. In order to be a good teacher, you have to actually understand the subject, and men just aren't going to understand being a women in a patriarchy, so they're not going to be able to teach it to a high level.

Of course they can! It's like saying a man can't be a midwife.

I would rather a man didnt teach feminism but I object to a trans woman teaching it more!

Sturdy, it seems that you may be taking ‘being a woman’ to equate with ‘experience of/qualified in feminism’. I don’t agree that’s the case. I don’t believe that only women can understand feminism, can you explain more why you (apparently) do?

And look at the argument that you now allow a self-confessed MRA to make - if men can’t understand feminism, then how can they be expected to do anything about women’s oppression. Great.

Cwenthryth wrote - "History, philosophy, literature - the facts don’t change based on who is presenting them, surely."

Every lecturer brings his or her own bias, especially to arts and humanities subjects where the facts are usually much more debatable and probably less numerous than in sciences. Therefore, I think the background and biases of lecturers of feminism are probably more significant than those of science lecturers, for example.

And look at the argument that you now allow a self-confessed MRA to make - if men can’t understand feminism, then how can they be expected to do anything about women’s oppression. Great.

You are doing a 'look at what you made him do' here? On this thread.

Good grief.

men just aren't going to understand being a women in a patriarchy, so they're not going to be able to teach it to a high level.

Same question - why can men not understand feminism? If you’re not experiencing a specific oppression it can clearly be more difficult to see that oppression, and therefore the need for a movement to counter it, but it doesn’t follow that you’re therefore incapable of understanding the issues once you do see the oppression and learn about the movement.

You are doing a 'look at what you made him do' here? On this thread.

Good grief.

No I did not - please do not twist my words. Your argument allows the follow-on point that he made, and one that I find concerning. No one made anyone do anything.

Why do you believe that men cannot understand feminism?

@IncrediblySturdyPyjamas dictionary definition of feminism is the belief that women are equal to men, and activities and advocacy supporting that belief. When you are taught about feminism, you are taught objective facts about for example the history, when changes took place, reasons why.

Am I right in thinking that the above is all completely wrong in your world and that you think that women who are fine with the above are quite simply wrong-thinking or deluded?

Just making sure I understand.

My gut reaction is that yes a man can teach feminism just as an atheist can teach about Islam or a believer in free markets can teach about communism - as part of a wider curriculum and at a fairly basic level. It's certainly possible to teach something without believing in it or relating to people who do - look at lecturers on ancient religions. But the central question here is can men actually get feminism. I think they can. The problem is that so many alleged male feminists honestly think they are feminists, and make virtuous statements about the pay gap and domestic violence, while at the same time unconsciously pushing a male-centric agenda - most obviously in promoting porn and prostitution as somehow harmless and even liberating for women.

Sturdypyjamas also thinks Abu Hamza has a balanced view on Islam because he has been Muslim for a while.

In my opinion, men can only teach feminism to the extent that anyone can teach something from a textbook - ie. at a surface level - like a non-native speaker can teach you Spanish, but you have to go there and interact with native speakers to really get good at it. In order to be a good teacher, you have to actually understand the subject, and men just aren't going to understand being a women in a patriarchy, so they're not going to be able to teach it to a high level

Though it does seem that a few of the female "feminists" on this board don't understand feminism either so there we do have a problem. To follow your rules there would have to be one elected "queen of the world" who would decide what every feminist must think and feel and do. Can't see that working...

The problem is that so many alleged male feminists honestly think they are feminists, and make virtuous statements about the pay gap and domestic violence, while at the same time unconsciously pushing a male-centric agenda - most obviously in promoting porn and prostitution as somehow harmless and even liberating for women.

This is a really good point, but, this problem is not restricted to men - some women do this too.

Same question - why can men not understand feminism? If you’re not experiencing a specific oppression it can clearly be more difficult to see that oppression, and therefore the need for a movement to counter it, but it doesn’t follow that you’re therefore incapable of understanding the issues once you do see the oppression and learn about the movement.

I think that I have a good imagination, I've been an older sister, older cousin, I've baby sat, I read all around the subject. YET, having my own baby was a whole different ballgame, it gave me an understanding that I could only gain through having that experience.

Just like I could live in Spain for 30 years, speak fluent spanish, marry a spaniard, but still, not have a depth of culture that would have me unquestioningly mop the street outside my house, like so many did when I lived there - I could know why they did it (Franco), but I didn't have it etched on my soul.

Men can have a superficial understanding, they can read all the theory, and speak it fluently, but they haven't lived it. They haven't, from birth, been given dolls, been expected to be the peacemaker, or to help with the housework, been ignored in B&Q, or become the default contact for a MIL. They've not had expectations around childbirth and child-rearing, been ignored at the doctors, when complaining, been grunted at for taking up space.

There are some things that you have to live to truly understand.

Not ONE of the lovely men I know in my life would even dream of teaching feminism.

They are however willing to understand why Picasso is not much loved from a feminist viewpoint.

I was taught about the life of Roman and Greek Women by a male professor, as part of my degree, who apologised profusely because he understood the misogyny those women had to endure and recognised that little had changed. He was, he admitted, out of his depth.

Sturdypyjamas also thinks Abu Hamza has a balanced view on Islam because he has been Muslim for a while

I'll thank you for not putting words my mouth. If you have an opinion, why not give it?

To follow your rules there would have to be one elected "queen of the world" who would decide what every feminist must think and feel and do. Can't see that working...

What? Why? Of course not, what a strange thing to say! Just like there's no 'queen of spanish' (although the french are giving it a go with their language).

Feels to me more like you're saying that if men can't understand it it can't really exist.....

You sound very downtrodden fruitonaplatter. Trust me this is not typical treatment of females. I have never been treated the way you mention in you last post.

I do have an opinion. My opinion is you sound like a die hard bitter extremist.

I do have an opinion. My opinion is you sound like a die hard bitter extremist.

Bitter. Lol. Of course. We're always bitter.

Have you not an opinion on the actual question though? Apart from not understanding as shown by your totally absurd 'Abu Hamza' post.

There are some things that you have to live to truly understand.

Thankyou for the explanation of your viewpoint Fruit it makes a lot of sense. But to me it still seems to be an argument for women seeing (experiencing) oppression and understanding the need for feminism easier/better than men, rather than women inherently having the capability to understand feminism as a concept/philosophy/movement itself, and men not being capable of doing so.

It’s clear that many women don’t understand feminism, or have differing opinions of what feminism is or should be. That doesn’t mean that we’re all right or wrong or that feminism is one thing or several possible interpretations - but it does seem to lend weight to an argument against women inherently understanding feminism due to their sex, surely?

LOL - not downtrodden at all - but I was one of 3 women on a 100 person course at Uni, and had my share of comments/dismissals.

I've worked in IT for the last 20 years, and now I'm very senior, but still had plenty of expectations that I'd take the notes, or men assuming I was junior, or going to my boss because I'd disagreed with them on something, or getting angry (!) in interviews because I'd asked them a tricky question (and yes, plenty of men who didn't do that, but also in return were never expected to be on the receiving end)

I'm an educated, privileged woman - I have money now, I have confidence, and am in top management. My sisters aren't - their stories are even worse - I'm very typical actually - infact, the way I'm not typical, is that I can fight back - my SAHM sisters can't, as they don't have the economic power to do so.

You can separate the academic from the political. I don't think men can be feminists but they can teach the theories than feminists have developed.

The course is not supposed to teach women how to be feminists, you can study it without being one.

It is no different to a creationist teaching natural selection or a capitalist teaching Marx. They don't have to agree with it, they don't have to relate to it but they can still understand the theory.