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?

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.

Yes, I'd agree with that to a certain extent, in that I think it's a result of treatment, rather than something innate in women.

OK, my view on this....
Feminism has always been regarded as 'other', a subversive discipline that deviates from the mainstream. It is shoved away in random modules that are electives and are largely taken by female students. As a result, it commands little respect. There is 'the truth' (ie the mainstream view) and then there is 'feminism'.
We will never get equality if this continues. Imo, feminism should be embedded across the curriculum at university. It should be taught by lecturers of both sexes. It should be as prominent as other mainstream theories by men, not just a tucked away alternative. If we say only women can teach it, it will remain a niche area that can be ignored by male students and lecturers.

Have you not an opinion on the actual question though?

Do you, Sturdy? Why do you believe that men are not capable of understanding feminism?

(I’ve no idea wtf that Abu Hamza comment is about, btw, but it gives me a poorer opinion of the person apparently bringing an ongoing spat into the debate rather than the person they’re targeting).

Mansplaining guide

It’s clear that many women don’t understand feminism, or have differing opinions of what feminism is or should be.

It's clear by this sentence alone, that you are confused Cwen as conflating the two cancels them out. If someone has no understanding of a concept then their opinion on it is no valid.

Do you, Sturdy? Why do you believe that men are not capable of understanding feminism?

Why do you think they are?

(I’ve no idea wtf that Abu Hamza comment is about, btw, but it gives me a poorer opinion of the person apparently bringing an ongoing spat into the debate rather than the person they’re targeting).

I have no idea either, I have no ongoing spat with anyone so if you know of their comments elsewhere about or to me, it is news to me.

Wine agree 100%. There is a difference between understanding & teaching feminism (ie feminist theory/philosophy/history of the movement etc), and doing effective feminist activism or making feminist political arguments etc, using the passion the experience of oppression gives you.

Imo, feminism should be embedded across the curriculum at university. It should be taught by lecturers of both sexes. It should be as prominent as other mainstream theories by men, not just a tucked away alternative. If we say only women can teach it, it will remain a niche area that can be ignored by male students and lecturers

Really interesting point PeakPants, but why start at university? By that point a lot of a person’s beliefs about the world are already well formed. Why not embed feminism right through the curriculum from day 1.

A man teaching feminism has not understood feminism. I would walk out

@fruitonaplatter Feels to me more like you're saying that if men can't understand it it can't really exist..... that is not the logical conclusion of what I wrote, sorry, though I cannot account for your feelings obviously. Someone qualified to teach History will be able to teach it without going back in time. I think the issue here is the definition of feminism. I think anyone suitably qualified can teach feminism by reference to the dictionary definition and associated studies. If your definition is different from the dictionary definition, then your issue is with the dictionary definition, not men.

This is what I object to in many of these threads. Men are made to central to it all for you. You want men to patronise us by doing exactly what women say in relation to feminism - not to believe in equality or give opinions, but to enforce a set of special rules which help poor little women.

I disagree. I don't want or need men's patronage, I don't want a set of special rules. I can fight for equal rights and enforce the rights that exist all on my own thanks. I want changes in our society to do with demeaning porn but I don't want men to patronise me by telling off their friends who use porn, more I want the law changed. Who cares about male patronage - what we need is a decent legal framework (we have an ok legal framework but it needs to be better) to support our rights and a way to enforce it, and then women can do it on our own.

Your obsession with men is not needed. Who cares if they teach feminism by reference to accepted academic standards?

I learnt about feminism in A-Level sociology, my teacher was male but I learnt it well enough to get an A in that subject. I then talked about feminist views on topics in pretty much every module of every year of my 4 years at uni. Not all those seminars were led by women, but most were (luck of the draw). But I do disagree with a lot of people here on what feminism is/is not, so maybe I did get taught it 'wrong'.

As I said, I think that it's much like teaching a language - yes, I could teach Spanish, but, I'm not a native speaker, so I will certainly not do it as well as a teacher of native Spanish.

I've lived in Spain for a while, I could teach some culture, but I was not raised there, I don't have it ingrained.

Spanish people aren't 'innately' spanish, but their culture is taught from the moment they're born in words, deeds, and expectations. Feminism is the same. A man could teach feminism, but he won't have the depth of understanding, he never can have, because he's never been a woman or a girl, and had the expectations and treatment ingrained in him.

We don't need men's patronage - but feminism is about liberation - and that liberation is from men and males - if we have them teach about feminism, despite not living the reason for it, I think that's wrong. I think that's appropriation, just like if I announced myself an authority on Spanish culture.

placemats there was an ‘or’ in there (not ‘and’), I don’t believe I was conflating anything.

Why do you think they are?

Because I don’t believe that a person’s sex dictates their ability, in general (biological functions aside). Do you disagree?

I’m not aware of any particular comments, Sturdy, that was just how that bizarre post came across, as if the poster had a personal axe to grind with you. You are a challenging individual to debate but I’ll stop giving that AH thing oxygen now, it deserves to be ignored.

For the record I don’t think men should get away with violence against women and girls, or discriminating against women. However there comes a point where men’s perspectives on women’s issues or indeed women’s perspectives on men’s issues need to be brought in.

This doesn’t have to be a gender conflict it can be a gender negotiation.

@fruitonaplatter I think I was saying teaching it is more comparable to teaching history than a language. Language and music are quite unique in relation to the personal experience required. Feminism is an academic subject like history, geography, law. No personal experience required. feminism is about liberation feminism according to the dictionary is the belief that men and women are equal, nothing to do with liberation. To you it may be liberation, to me it is choices. But the definition is equality as I said. With equality you can make it what you like for your own life, so I am happy with the dictionary definition. I like men (well, men who treat me with respect, anyway) so I don't want liberation.

It's liberation from the patriarchy - from patriarchal societal structures and expectation, not from men as such. And yes, liberation from those is equality.

equality is a dangerous word though, because it leans towards treating everyone the same - and that clearly doesn't work - if we gave everyone size 4 shoes, I'd be happy, but most people would be disadvantaged for instance.

I don't think it is equivalent to teaching history - feminism isn't something like archaeology, or ancient languages - it's needed now, it's in practise now - it requires cultural knowledge and change - hence me comparing it to a language rather than something like history or physics.

Gwen It was a clumsy sentence and the only inference to be gleaned from it was conflation.

I might add I've noticed you use the phrases and words:

'axe to grind'
'bizarre'
'challenging individual'

when giving criticism to a 'poster' who is only seeking to engage with you on an intellectual level.

This is what I object to in many of these threads. Men are made to central to it all for you. You want men to patronise us by doing exactly what women say in relation to feminism - not to believe in equality or give opinions, but to enforce a set of special rules which help poor little women.

I disagree. I don't want or need men's patronage, I don't want a set of special rules. I can fight for equal rights and enforce the rights that exist all on my own thanks. I want changes in our society to do with demeaning porn but I don't want men to patronise me by telling off their friends who use porn, more I want the law changed. Who cares about male patronage - what we need is a decent legal framework (we have an ok legal framework but it needs to be better) to support our rights and a way to enforce it, and then women can do it on our own.

Your obsession with men is not needed. Who cares if they teach feminism by reference to accepted academic standards?

Feel like I want to give you a standing ovation for this, chemistry. Although I disagree with your later post, I don’t see feminism being a belief in equality between the sexes as mutually exclusive with feminism being a movement seeking liberation of women from patriarchal oppression.

Oh, I now understand this thread.

I've stumbled upon the equivalence of Brexiteers discussing the benefits that Brexit will bring to the UK.

As you were.

It was a clumsy sentence and the only inference to be gleaned from it was conflation.

Glad to have cleared up your misunderstanding then.

I might add I've noticed you use the phrases and words:

'axe to grind'
'bizarre'
'challenging individual'

when giving criticism to a 'poster' who is only seeking to engage with you on an intellectual level.

‘Bizarre’ and ‘axe to grind’ were in reference to starzig’s apparent attempt to discredit Sturdy, and I intended ‘challenging individual’ as a compliment to Sturdy, she is clearly passionate about the topic and not an easy debate opponent, which is a good thing in my opinion.

Your point being?

You sound very downtrodden fruitonaplatter

Why on earth are people getting so personal

A fair few things fruit describes have happened to me

The idea that makes me downtrodden is laughable

see...

How feminist would a woman need to be to be considered qualified to run a series of lectures on feminism.? Looking at all the divisions within feminism one womans feminist is anothers class traitor (let alone the many many women who decline to describe themselves as feminist) ...is the only qualification required to teach feminism the correct genitals ?

is the only qualification required to teach feminism the correct genitals?

I would say it is the socialisation and experience, not just the genitals but they kinda come as a package.

I would expect a politics lecturer to be able to lecture on almost any political movement without being a proponent of the movement or supporting the ideology, whether it is fascism, republicanism, the civil rights movement, socialism or feminism. To lecture on fascism one does not need to be a fascist.