Male feminists?

[SquireThomas]

[quote]So what do you think? Is a man calling himself a feminist just a man who wants to pick up feminist women? If so, does it work? Or can it be an earnest sentiment? And if so, should men actively partake in the transfer of power, even though that might sully the idea of the oppressed gender taking control?[/quote]

Some interesting terminology here. What powers exactly are being transferred? What is it you see women taking control of?

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735455' date='Mar 27 2009, 03.10']Completely agree. It is easier to have a discussion with somebody who is already at least "on the same side" and interested in the topic than somebody who says FU and tells you a joke about blondes with big boobs, how women can't drive and then when you get annoyed tells you you have no humour.

Everyone makes mistakes as well, plus a lot of female feminists disagree on issues. Disagreeing on issues is definitely not detrimental. Only through healthy discussion and people actually giving a fuck can we move forward. :)


EDIT: Plus I think the White knight label can be tossed around to discredit people's arguments as well, which is unfair.[/quote]
There is no "same side." Boobs or no. Make sense or don't.

White knights, I don't know. I'm not one of them. But IMO, it's not a great or useful label, is it?

[sio]

Define "feminist".

There are a couple of different definitions of the term - one I find odious and the other inappropriate.

In this, anyone calling themselves a feminist in front of me, regardless of sex or gender, will find themselves met with suspicion and a request for a definition of same.

I am someone who believes in completely equal treatment of both genders/sexes. I've been told I'm fanatical about it. The current situation in Australia is not good enough, and the situation in the US is, I believe, pretty much the same. I'm not a feminist. There's a difference.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735433' date='Mar 27 2009, 10.27']I just love how people claim they are "not feminist". :rolleyes: Anf for the record, feminism is not the anti-thesis to being a humanist; you can be both quite happily as they don't clash.[/quote]

:agree: (ETA: I find it even weirder and somewhat sad when women who are striving to be acknowledged for their skills independently of their gender/sex (but also want to marry and have children) feel the need to distance themselves from "feminists", as if only those who are writing papers about gender in history or dominate the debates about feminism could be feminists.)

I would prefer calling myself humanist to calling myself feminist if there wasn't the bug within "humanism" that sets the default of "human" to "male" in almost every context. As long as those structures of perception are as permeative as they still are, I think that "humanism" does not cover enough issues.

Regarding male feminists, I have to say that I have not met any self-described male feminist in real life. However, I know quite a lot of guys who are aware that gender roles are often simply that, culturally formed roles, not laws of behaviour set in stone, who consider their SO as an equal partner etc., even if they would never call themselves feminists. That's at least honest, and I appreciate it. In the end, what people really do or how they behave is more important then self-identification.

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1735471' date='Mar 27 2009, 03.31']In the end, what people really do or how they behave is more important then self-identification.[/quote]
Feminist, masculanist, humanist. Don't be an asshole. Non-assholist. Easy.

[tzanth]

[quote name='sio' post='1735468' date='Mar 27 2009, 02.27']I am someone who believes in completely equal treatment of both genders/sexes. I've been told I'm fanatical about it. The current situation in Australia is not good enough, and the situation in the US is, I believe, pretty much the same. I'm not a feminist. There's a difference.[/quote]
This makes no sense. If you're "fanatical" about equal rights for all genders you're quite clearly a femenist. See Lyanna's previous post.

Sadly, it seems like the misogynists have been fairly successful in dominating the definitional narrative when it comes to feminism.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='sio' post='1735468' date='Mar 27 2009, 10.27']Define "feminist".

There are a couple of different definitions of the term - one I find odious and the other inappropriate.

In this, anyone calling themselves a feminist in front of me, regardless of sex or gender, will find themselves met with suspicion and a request for a definition of same.

I am someone who believes in completely equal treatment of both genders/sexes. I've been told I'm fanatical about it. The current situation in Australia is not good enough, and the situation in the US is, I believe, pretty much the same. I'm not a feminist. There's a difference.[/quote]

A difference? How? If you believe that treatment is currently unequal, and you are in favour of redressing that balance (ie. giving additional powers/rights/whatever to the group that currently has less), then how does that differ from what feminists are trying to achieve?

Unless your "fanatical" belief is merely that, a belief, and you're not actually [i]doing[/i] anything to achieve this equality, which is how you differ from feminists?

Treating feminism as a dirty word is baffling to me, unless you also agree that the goals of feminism are somehow wrong. At least I can understand El-Ahrairah's position even if I find it utterly wrong.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='sio' post='1735468' date='Mar 27 2009, 12.27']Define "feminist".

There are a couple of different definitions of the term - one I find odious and the other inappropriate.

In this, anyone calling themselves a feminist in front of me, regardless of sex or gender, will find themselves met with suspicion and a request for a definition of same.

I am someone who believes in completely equal treatment of both genders/sexes. I've been told I'm fanatical about it. The current situation in Australia is not good enough, and the situation in the US is, I believe, pretty much the same. I'm not a feminist. There's a difference.[/quote]


I did post the definition. Please see upthreads. That IS THE definition.

And no, there isn't a difference. If you are fighting for the equality of the sexes, you are a feminist. Trying to distance yourself from the nutjobs is one thing, completely disregarding the name is another.

I don't get why being a feminist is suspicious at all. Only uneducated people think you're a man hating bra burning muppet who never wash if you're a feminist.

[sio]

[quote name='tzanth' post='1735474' date='Mar 27 2009, 20.09']This makes no sense. If you're "fanatical" about equal rights for all genders you're quite clearly a femenist. See Lyanna's previous post.

Sadly, it seems like the misogynists have been fairly successful in dominating the definitional narrative when it comes to feminism.[/quote]

I've read Lyanna's post. Now read mine.

I said that I find that definition of the term inappropriate. Linguistically, historically and in modern usage the term carries connotations of, well, a focus on the female side. As it is currently commonly used, the term 'feminism' is usually taken to mean someone who campaigns/supports womens' rights. While this is technically true of me, it carries connotations with which I am not comfortable. I'm an egalitarian. I want equal rights for all sexes/genders, including things such as equal clothing laws and no sex-based prejudice in custody battles, and I don't want my position described by a term that very clearly is derived from one gender.

If this means you think I'm a misogynist then so be it.

ETA: my issue is not with feminism. My issue is with the term as some would apply it to me. I actively campaign against racism and for racial equality. Does this mean that 'Caucasianist' would be an appropriate term to describe me?

Second edit: clarified.

[tzanth]

Feminism is derived from the word "female" because that is the disadvantaged gender within the western European gender system. The definition of feminism is quite clear and has already been spelled out in this thread. If you are for equal rights you're a feminist. If you're not, you're clearly insane. Adopting some other bizarre definition for feminism is equivalent to accepting the male-chauvinist narrative.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote]I said that I find that definition of the term inappropriate. Linguistically, historically and in modern usage the term carries connotations of, well, a focus on the female side. As it is currently commonly used, the term 'feminism' is usually taken to mean someone who campaigns/supports womens' rights.[/quote]

The definition is the definition. It means what it means. It makes little sense to say you are uncomfortable with the word "horse" because it has historical connotations without mentioning what these are, as it is not obvious. (More on that later.)

I know a lot of people, especially people who still seem to have some sort of hang-up on feminists being crazies who care only about themselves, who refuse to use the word feminist for the same reason, but that is silly. (Not saying this is the case here.)

It's not like anyone can force you to admit that you are a feminist or call yourself that, but to complain about the definition being unclear is simply not true: it is very clear.

To complain about historical connotations I also don't understand. Which are you looking at in particular? The fight for universal suffrage? de Beaviour's theories about the Other? The Beaty myth? I am honestly not sure where feminism historically has offended you. I feel I am reasonably well read up, yet I don't recognise these things at all and would really appreciate some examples.

Lignuistically, I think the word isn't bad at all. It tells you what the main focus is: the fight for women's rights. I don't see why this is strange? And as I said before, there is nothing that prevents you from being a humanist or an egalitarian and still be a feminist. There is no conflict.

You mention custody cases where a lot of feminists have rightfully argued that the mother should not have default custody. Sweden is a good example of this, I think, where custody cases and parental leave are both far more equal than in many other countries. You can for instance split parental leave between parents and fathers are allowed time off work on the same terms as mothers.

[tenalpia]

White knights are just fine, in fact any colour of knight is just fine :P But I want to be fighting alongside him not being rescued - being rescued is very bad for my self-esteem!

[ztemhead]

I need a hero
I'm holding out for a hero till the morning light
And he's gotta be strong
And he's gotta be cool
And he's gotta be larger than life
Larger than life...


(while I'm delighted with the proliferation of the term "white knight" as a [i]known thing[/i], I do reckon it's a separate subject from makes a true male feminist, though many white knights believe they are also that)

[sio]

@tzanth: so now I'm "accepting the male-chauvinist narrative"? Wonderful.

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735487' date='Mar 27 2009, 20.32']Lignuistically, I think the word isn't bad at all. It tells you what the main focus is: the fight for women's rights.[/quote]

Which is exactly my point. If the main focus of feminism is the fight for women's rights, then I'm not a feminist. Simple.

You seem to believe that the dictionary definition is all that matters; I think that the linguistic origins of a word are important as well. I'll leave it at that - just be careful who you call a feminist.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='sio' post='1735496' date='Mar 27 2009, 12.12']@tzanth: so now I'm "accepting the male-chauvinist narrative"? Wonderful.



Which is exactly my point. If the main focus of feminism is the fight for women's rights, then I'm not a feminist. Simple.

You seem to believe that the dictionary definition is all that matters; I think that the linguistic origins of a word are important as well. I'll leave it at that - just be careful who you call a feminist.[/quote]


I don't get that. You don't disagree with what feminism wants to achieve and actively work for it, but the word freaks you out? :stunned:

I'm not sure what you think it should contain? A word describing the fight for women's equality should instead be..?
You also mentioned the historical connotations, which I am also really baffled about.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='tzanth' post='1735486' date='Mar 27 2009, 12.01']Feminism is derived from the word "female" because that is the disadvantaged gender within the western European gender system.[/quote]
What does “Western European” do in that sentence? Would you subscribe to the view that among all gender systems ever studied, the Western European one is the most feminist?

[quote]The definition of feminism is quite clear and has already been spelled out in this thread.[/quote]
Then allow me to cut to the interesting part: is feminism inherently postmodern? For example, must a feminist restrict his attention to [i]structural[/i] issues, or can a feminist believe in inherent (“biological”) sex differences in aptitude and cognition? Can I, to make it clear, believe that women are, on average, dumber than men and still be a feminist? (The analogy is to [i]racism[/i]: does my belief that white gentiles are dumber than Ashkenazi Jews [i]and born that way[/i] make me a racist?)

Is Stephen Pinker a feminist, even though he is a main popularizer of inherent gender differences? (He self-identifies as feminist.) Is Simon Baron-Cohen? Am I? (I also self-identify as feminist.) Or are they (and am I) the exact opposite?

(Is Simone de a feminist? Is Christina Hoff Sommers? Is Larry Summer?)

Don’t pretend this is an easy question; there’s a huge gap between difference feminists and the post-structuralists. Especially, for us whose input is highly skewed towards academic writings, Feminism is strongly aligned with certain political, academic, and epistemological strands, such as postmodernism, and the de-coupling is highly nontrivial.

Using [i]Feminism[/i] as a catch-all for “common decency” (i.e., not being insane) may be a bad idea. As far as I can tell, what value the term has left is mainly symbolic. It’s a [i]signal[/i], something that allows you to be belong. Like a Vulcan greeting, or a fursuit. Scratch the surface, and you find no alignment of opinion. I think that’s a damn shame; I’d like feminism to mean something.

Of course, I blame postmodernism. Routinely.

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735508' date='Mar 27 2009, 11.22']I'm not sure what you think it should contain? A word describing the fight for women's equality should instead be..?
You also mentioned the historical connotations, which I am also really baffled about.[/quote]
I don't get this either, Lyanna, so you're not alone. I wonder if it's to do with the whole "feminazi" bollocks - and I love the icon that I think Chaldanya's using at the moment; "[i]Feminazi - because wanting to be treated like a human being is the same as invading Poland[/i]".

Sexism, in my eyes, is in part a particular form of bullying that relies on an uneven power dynamic. So when people call feminists feminazis, it's often because the name-callers know that there is no real recourse. And the rest of it, deliberately conflating the most extreme misandrist positions with mainstream feminism, is just plain [b]sexism [/b]- as in the particular manifestation of sexism that treats women as an amorphous mass when men's individual positions are respected.

***

And look how quickly this thread's been derailed into a discussion of semantics instead of anything more substantial!!!

[sio]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735508' date='Mar 27 2009, 20.52']I don't get that. You don't disagree with what feminism wants to achieve and actively work for it, but the word freaks you out? :stunned:

I'm not sure what you think it should contain? A word describing the fight for women's equality should instead be..?
You also mentioned the historical connotations, which I am also really baffled about.[/quote]

Okay, sorry, maybe I wasn't clear in previous posts. Answers to your questions:

1. In essence, yes. I think it's limiting.

2. People can call themselves whatever they want, but I personally consider myself an egalitarian.

3. All I meant was that the history of the word is clearly rooted in a time when the fight for women's rights was the necessary fight, and the term was created to reflect this - feminism, the fight for female rights, for that was what it was. Now that the movement has expanded to try to eliminate those cases were males have lesser rights as well, I believe that a non-gender-specific term is needed to describe this.

[Lyanna Stark]

HE:

I believe that calling somebody an anti-feminist when they self identify with feminism or are clearl proponents for the feminist cause (in its most limited sense: the fight for equality) is just like calling somebody who wants to discuss culture differences a racist: it limits the discussion and is inheretly stupid.

I prefer having a broad discussion. Being scared of the word is counter productive. It's like Iranians sometimes call themselves Persians since they feel they can't stand up and say they are Iranians since that is inherently violent and paints them as extremists.

[quote]Then allow me to cut to the interesting part: is feminism inherently postmodern? For example, must a feminist restrict his attention to structural issues, or can a feminist believe in inherent (“biological”) sex differences in aptitude and cognition? Can I, to make it clear, believe that women are, on average, dumber than men and still be a feminist? (The analogy is to racism: does my belief that white gentiles are dumber than Ashkenazi Jews and born that way make me a racist?)[/quote]

The answer to this is obviously yes, you can still be a feminist and hold all these opinions. Simone de Beaviour herself is pretty clear that she thinks women are physically inferior and she is annoyed at angry and shrill feminists who she thinks take away from the discourse. Yet I don't think a lot of people would disagree that "The Second Sex" is an incredibly strong feminist book and that her views are feminist, and that she is actually a feminist, despite her being adamant of women's physical inferiority.

Biologically based feminism is very often quite stupid though, and often ends up with women worshipping some Earth mother, or writing articles about how pregnant women get "porridge for brains" (a famous article written by a Swedish female physician I seem to remember was called Uggla) due to their inherently flawed biology. It's also been wielded as a political tool by the right to force women into a more traditional role based on "biological facts".


EDIT: Missing words

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1735520' date='Mar 27 2009, 12.40']I believe that calling somebody an anti-feminist when they self identify with feminism or are clearl proponents for the feminist cause (in it's most limited sense: the fight for equality) is just like calling somebody a racist: it limits the discussion and is inheretly stupid.[/quote]
Ly, I believe that you and I are well aligned in those questions, both in our opinion of SdB and the discoursive value of calling somebody [i]racist[/i]. (I’m sure there is an interesting debate about Chaldanya’s avatar or Minaku’s sigline hidden here…)