Wherenextcolumbus
Well-Known Member
It's open season on feminism again on RF. If it isn't Muslim women, LDS Christians, or queers being targets for the grumbling, it's how feminists are ruining life for people.
It's been asked before, but let's get some fresh voices here. How much does feminism need to sell itself to others, say for instance, men? To be considered legitimate? Or welcoming?
Must there be a minimum of men present to be legitimate in the eyes of the whole? Must men be happy with what women and other feminist men are saying?
I once read an onion article that had me giggling...the article title read something along the lines of "All Male Feminist Panel Feels Confident They Can Finally Do Something Worthwhile"...or something to that effect. It made a hilarious but relevant point. And with Emma Watsons "He for She" campaign with the UN, she and other feminists who have utilized the lean in approach to make feminism more palatable for men has been seen as the ideal rhetoric.
But that also begs the question: Must ALL feminist rhetoric be palatable to men's sensitivities?
Is this the most impactful road to gender equality? Or are we simply following the same road of thinking by making sure the men in the room are happy and content with what we want for our rights and protections? How is this any different with what society expects for men and women? That men must have the final say in what is worthwhile or not?
Feminists only, please.
Signed,
A woman who gives a damn what men experience, but not at my own expense as a woman.
It seems the be the same people on RF talking about how awful feminism is, so not much has changed in that respect since I've been away. Same jokers different day.
I'm starting to change my view on whether or not cis men can call themselves feminists since they don't experience misogyny. They can be feminist allies and certainly allies to individual feminist causes. But people who experience misogyny are the ones who should be directing feminist philosophy. What we need and what feminism is, should be a discussion amongst the people whom feminism should be prioritising. Cis men can use their privilege to educate other men but they shouldn't direct or define what feminism should be about.
The problem with the Emma Watson's speech isn't so much that it was extremely simplistic about defining feminism and it isn't so much that she could have spoken about more important issues than someone calling her "bossy", the problem is that she basically implied men don't have privilege. She's clearly not knowledgeable on feminist philosophy or she just didn't imply that knowledge when she was writing that speech.
Feminism shouldn't be about making men feel better about themselves, they can get therapy for that. Feminism should be challenging to men. For example a lot of men are going to realise they have sexually assaulted or sexually harassed a woman and that's going to be awfully uncomfortable for them, but that's up to them to face it or not.