Feminist only: how important is it to "sell" feminism to others?

[Kirran]

But by defining men (and, by extension, other non-women?) as allies of feminism, as opposed to members of the feminist movement, they're excluded from it based on their gender. This make it increasingly separatist, as opposed to something inclusive.

Of course, victims of misogyny's experiences are the most important when considering feminist policy (if that could ever be overall agreed upon) and I absolutely respect that, and what @Horrorble was saying about that - we can't have non-women telling women how to be feminist (or indeed telling men, or whoever, how to be feminist). But that doesn't mean that those who aren't women should be just pushed to the sidelines and excluded from the movement, and I still think men and other non-women who consider themselves members of the feminist movement have every right to be right there in the centre of it, involved in discussions r.e. policy.

 

[Koldo]

Great post.

The funny part is that if you think that was a great post you shouldn't be posting on the 'Feminist Only' part of the forum.

Horrorble is free to correct me if she feels I'm not representing her post correctly, but this is what I understood when I read it:

Men can be allies of feminism as much as they want, but only people who experience misogyny first-hand should direct what feminism is about. In other words, while men can be feminist allies, they shouldn't try to determine what feminism should be about and make it about satisfying what men think feminism should be rather than focusing on women's issues; only feminists who have first-hand experience of misogyny—mainly women, obviously—should be the ones to set the goals of feminism and determine what direction they want to take it in.

I strongly agree with those points. I would totally welcome any women who felt like supporting men's rights and identifying as advocates of men's rights, but I don't think it would make sense or be acceptable for them to try to tell men what men's rights movements should be about. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't be applied to feminism.

The issue is that she conflates the authority to direct feminism with being a feminist in itself. In other words, you can only be a feminist if you are properly capable of directing feminism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The funny part is that if you think that was a great post you shouldn't be posting on the 'Feminist Only' part of the forum.

Thanks, but I understand very well who should and shouldn't post in the different forum sections.

The issue is that she conflates the authority to direct feminism with being a feminist in itself. In other words, you can only be a feminist if you are properly capable of directing feminism.

I'll leave that for Horrorble to explain, but, again, what I understand from the post is that what you call "feminism" is being a feminist ally, whereas what Horrorble is referring to is actually directing or trying to direct the goals of the movement itself.

 

[Nietzsche]

We recently had an issue with a man at our local group who interrupted everybody at the meetings, who said that he hated the term "privilege", and who said that feminism should be more open to men like him. Ironically, we already had two cis men who had been facilitators, but this man felt that more "aggressive" men like him was needed for us to realize our full potential (his words).

I'll be honest. I really ****ing hate the word "privilege", but that's from every 13-15yr old suburban middle-class kid whine about "Female privilege" or "gay privilege" or just any adjective-privilege on Tumblr while Linkinpark whines & wheezes in the background.

 

[Koldo]

Thanks, but I understand very well who should and shouldn't post in the different forum sections.

I am certain you do. I am afraid you might not understand how Horrorble uses the term 'feminist' in a manner that would exclude both of us though. If you truly agree with her you shouldn't be posting here since you wouldn't consider yourself a 'feminist'.

I'll leave that for Horrorble to explain, but, again, what I understand from the post is that what you call "feminism" is being a feminist ally, whereas what Horrorble is referring to is actually directing or trying to direct the goals of the movement itself.

You can just check the conversation between Kirran and her. If you have any doubt on what she meant that would make it obvious.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'll be honest. I really ****ing hate the word "privilege", but that's from every 13-15yr old suburban middle-class kid whine about "Female privilege" or "gay privilege" or just any adjective-privilege on Tumblr while Linkinpark whines & wheezes in the background.

You're an equal opportunity hater. Right on.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am certain you do. I am afraid you might not understand how Horrorble uses the term 'feminist' in a manner that would exclude both of us though. If you truly agree with her you shouldn't be posting here since you wouldn't consider yourself a 'feminist'.



You can just check the conversation between Kirran and her. If you have any doubt on what she meant that would make it obvious.

I think Horrorble's posts can sometimes be misunderstood due to the way they are expressed. She and I have talked quite a bit elsewhere, and I have no doubt that she views men as equal to women and vice versa.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Does it matter?

Sorry, I only wanted to pull a joke on someone

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sorry, I only wanted to pull a joke on someone

No worries.

 

[Sunstone]

Horrorble is free to correct me if she feels I'm not representing her post correctly, but this is what I understood when I read it:

Men can be allies of feminism as much as they want, but only people who experience misogyny first-hand should direct what feminism is about. In other words, while men can be feminist allies, they shouldn't try to determine what feminism should be about and make it about satisfying what men think feminism should be rather than focusing on women's issues; only feminists who have first-hand experience of misogyny—mainly women, obviously—should be the ones to set the goals of feminism and determine what direction they want to take it in.

I strongly agree with those points. I would totally welcome any women who felt like supporting men's rights and identifying as advocates of men's rights, but I don't think it would make sense or be acceptable for them to try to tell men what men's rights movements should be about. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't be applied to feminism.

I take a contrary view. Rights issues are of universal concern because, if they can take away your rights for arbitrary reasons, they can take away my rights for arbitrary reasons. Even if no woman on earth stood up for women's rights, women's rights would need to be fought for.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I take a contrary view. Rights issues are of universal concern because, if they can take away your rights for arbitrary reasons, they can take away my rights for arbitrary reasons. Even if no woman on earth stood up for women's rights, women's rights would need to be fought for.

I agree, but I don't think men's fighting for women's rights necessarily entails men's directing or determining what feminism should be about. I think LGBT rights are of universal concern, but that doesn't mean I believe I should tell LGBT people what direction the movements that fight for their rights should or shouldn't take while doing so.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree, but I don't think men's fighting for women's rights necessarily entails men's directing or determining what feminism should be about. I think LGBT rights are of universal concern, but that doesn't mean I believe I should tell LGBT people what direction the movements that fight for their rights should or shouldn't take while doing so.

If someone comes up with a good idea of how to fight the patriarchy, I'm not going to look at either their sex or their gender to decide whether or not their idea has merit.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

At RF if you self-identify as a feminist, then you're a feminist.

But whether you're a feminist or not, speaking for women, deciding what is best for women, deciding if what women want is worthy or not...and not identifying as a woman...only further perpetuates the notion that women are unable to speak for ourselves and that our rights do not matter as much.

 

[Debater Slayer]

If someone comes up with a good idea of how to fight the patriarchy, I'm not going to look at either their sex or their gender to decide whether or not their idea has merit.

I think that also falls under being a feminist ally. I agree with what Mystic said in her above post.

 

[Sunstone]

At RF if you self-identify as a feminist, then you're a feminist.

But whether you're a feminist or not, speaking for women, deciding what is best for women, deciding if what women want is worthy or not...and not identifying as a woman...only further perpetuates the notion that women are unable to speak for ourselves and that our rights do not matter as much.

That's an excellent point, but one need not pretend to speak for, or decide for, women in order to suggest courses of action and/or encourage them.

 

[Sunstone]

I think that also falls under being a feminist ally. I agree with what Mystic said in her above post.

Yeah, and "feminist allies" are "separate but equal", right?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's an excellent point, but one need not pretend to speak for, or decide for, women in order to suggest courses of action and/or encourage them.

I agree.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yeah, and "feminist allies" are "separate but equal", right?

I think they are only "separate" in that they shouldn't dictate the goals of feminism, but of course they are otherwise equal to all feminists. (At least I believe they are.)

 

[Sunstone]

I think they are only "separate" in that they shouldn't dictate the goals of feminism, but of course they are equal. (At least I believe they are.)

I don't think anyone should dictate the goals of feminism.

I am not proposing that the movement be run by men. I am more than happy it's run by women. But the day feminism adopts the notion that men cannot, even in principle, be among the leaders is the day that feminism betrays its own ideals. At least as I understand those ideals.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think anyone should dictate the goals of feminism.

I am not proposing that the movement be run by men. I am more than happy it's run by women. But the day feminism adopts the notion that men cannot, even in principle, be among the leaders is the day that feminism betrays its own ideals. At least as I understand those ideals.

This is one of the areas I'm most unsure about when it comes to my views on feminism, to be honest. On the one hand, I believe that, at least in theory, giving men and women an equal opportunity to be leaders of feminist movements exemplifies gender equality. On the other hand, I think it would be quite ironic for movements that aim to give women the ability to voice their opinions freely to be mostly led by men.

I view this issue similarly to how I view the issue of men sitting around a table to decide the extent to which women should be able to exercise their reproductive rights. Sure, many of those men may be completely in favor of women's rights, but the problem of men entirely speaking for women still exists in this case.

I think a balance where men have an opportunity to be leaders in women's rights movements while most of the leaders remain women may be the best idea. But my views on this issue are admittedly not certain.