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

[Sunstone]

I don't care whether there is ever a male leader of the women's rights movement. If there ever is, then so what? If there never is, then so what? It makes no difference to me. But the day men are to be excluded from leadership positions simply because they are men is the day that feminism in my eyes becomes just one more corrupt, hypocritical movement.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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.

Yes that is what I mean. Like I said I'm still not certain about the whole calling yourself a feminist thing, but I do believe that when men call themselves feminists they often think they have should have equal voice, when they can better use their privilege on other men. I kind of think it's like a white person calling themselves a black panther, I don't know. In no way was I saying that women are superior though. More that feminism should be centred around sex based oppression and the experiences of women, of course I'm all for intersectionality and I respect the spaces of other groups. You wouldn't see me trying to educate a Lesbian on being a Lesbian for example, well I certainly would try very very hard not to, I would rather use my privilege to shut down straight women for their lesbophobia. And I also wouldn't even say a man couldn't post on this forum either, if you consider yourself an ally then fine. But being a decent ally means really you should listen more.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I don't care whether there is ever a male leader of the women's rights movement. If there ever is, then so what? If there never is, then so what? It makes no difference to me. But the day men are to be excluded from leadership positions simply because they are men is the day that feminism in my eyes becomes just one more corrupt, hypocritical movement.

Yeah it makes no difference to you...why would it make a difference to you!?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

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.



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.

Well yeah In my opinion that makes sense, like I wouldn't say I'm a part of LGBT rights community I would say I support it and be an ally. So you can say your pro-feminist.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Horrorble's back.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Horrorble's back.

semi back, I don't have the strength right now to address everyone's points. Another reason why I have changed my view is because I've seen posts on the net by men sex positive "feminists" saying how much they hate "sex negative feminists". And yes they use the word hate. Now I haven't had hardly any interaction with so called radical male "feminists" but they would probably **** me off too and if I saw them posting anything about "hating" sex positive women, I would jump on them so fast. Know your place! lol!

 

[Koldo]

Well yeah In my opinion that makes sense, like I wouldn't say I'm a part of LGBT rights community I would say I support it and be an ally.

You have picked a curious example. In my country, many years ago, the most popular term was 'GLS'. It meant literally 'Gays, Lesbians and Sympathizers'.

So you can say your pro-feminist.

I do rather say I am a feminist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Glad you're back, @Horrorble. Some of your posts used to challenge me when reading (whether I responded or just lurked) and nice to see you haven't lost that knack. Challenge is good.

Practically, I don't suppose there is much difference to me personally in terms of whether I am considered a 'feminist' or a 'pro-feminist' or a 'feminist-ally'. In any of those cases, I would be trying to slowly educate myself on feminism, and (to be honest) selfishly focus more attention on aspects of feminism more likely to directly affect my family than aspects which are less likely to. I don't suggest this is the right way to go about it, but looking at the feminist issues I have worked hardest at educating myself on, and I can clearly see a correlation between self-interest as a father/husband and choice of issues.

I wouldn't for a second think I would ever be in a point to ever offer any sort of leadership to the feminist movement. It just seems a ridiculous notion. However, I think there should be (at least theoretically) an allowance that some sort of leadership positions could be held by males. I wouldn't see this as being anything other than a tiny minority, and I wouldn't see it as even being likely. To draw a parallel, there have been non-indigenous people involved in leadership on indigenous issues here in Australia. In many cases, this doesn't help, as their perspective is skewed almost unavoidably. However, there are particular positions or practical need which are simply filled by the best person for the job. This is particularly true around the areas of business skills, planning, infrastructure, etc, where the issues are practical, and not directly linked to ideology.

So, speaking as a feminist-ally, if you will, I'd suggest only that it's worth keeping some decisions pragmatic. Ideology is one thing, but leadership within a cohesive, large-scale movement is not limited to ideology alone if it's to be effective. Men shouldn't lead feminism, per se. That seems a contradiction to me. But personally I would see value in not completely disregarding the capacity of men to potentially provide leadership and decision making in certain areas of a large scale movement, dependent on what is required and the individuals involved/available.

 

[Penumbra]

I don't feel that language of exclusion is necessary, like some people get to be labeled "feminists" and other people get to be labeled "feminist allies" because the term feminist gets withheld from them. I can't imagine telling someone that based on their gender, they don't get to use the word feminist for themselves but instead have to use another term.

It would indeed be obnoxious for a self-styled aggressive guy to come in to some group and start telling women what feminism should be, though. Whether it's racial equality or gender equality or whatever, people that haven't lived through the experience as a member of that less privileged group, should be careful about what they tell people within that group, or what things should be like, or what they should focus on. I'd be all for kicking a repetitively obnoxious person out of a group.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't feel that language of exclusion is necessary, like some people get to be labeled "feminists" and other people get to be labeled "feminist allies" because the term feminist gets withheld from them. I can't imagine telling someone that based on their gender, they don't get to use the word feminist for themselves but instead have to use another term.

It would indeed be obnoxious for a self-styled aggressive guy to come in to some group and start telling women what feminism should be, though. Whether it's racial equality or gender equality or whatever, people that haven't lived through the experience as a member of that less privileged group, should be careful about what they tell people within that group, or what things should be like, or what they should focus on. I'd be all for kicking a repetitively obnoxious person out of a group.

I completely agree with this.

I've had a slight change of mind. I said earlier that it wouldn't matter to me whether or not feminism was led by men. Actually, now that I think about it, I would find that personally depressing, for it seems to me that such a situation might mean not enough women were interested in women's rights. So I actually do prefer women to be the leaders. But I still believe that should never be made a principle. That is, it should never be a principle of feminism that men cannot be the leaders. To me, such a principle would be contradictory.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Glad you're back, @Horrorble. Some of your posts used to challenge me when reading (whether I responded or just lurked) and nice to see you haven't lost that knack. Challenge is good.

Practically, I don't suppose there is much difference to me personally in terms of whether I am considered a 'feminist' or a 'pro-feminist' or a 'feminist-ally'. In any of those cases, I would be trying to slowly educate myself on feminism, and (to be honest) selfishly focus more attention on aspects of feminism more likely to directly affect my family than aspects which are less likely to. I don't suggest this is the right way to go about it, but looking at the feminist issues I have worked hardest at educating myself on, and I can clearly see a correlation between self-interest as a father/husband and choice of issues.

I wouldn't for a second think I would ever be in a point to ever offer any sort of leadership to the feminist movement. It just seems a ridiculous notion. However, I think there should be (at least theoretically) an allowance that some sort of leadership positions could be held by males. I wouldn't see this as being anything other than a tiny minority, and I wouldn't see it as even being likely. To draw a parallel, there have been non-indigenous people involved in leadership on indigenous issues here in Australia. In many cases, this doesn't help, as their perspective is skewed almost unavoidably. However, there are particular positions or practical need which are simply filled by the best person for the job. This is particularly true around the areas of business skills, planning, infrastructure, etc, where the issues are practical, and not directly linked to ideology.

So, speaking as a feminist-ally, if you will, I'd suggest only that it's worth keeping some decisions pragmatic. Ideology is one thing, but leadership within a cohesive, large-scale movement is not limited to ideology alone if it's to be effective. Men shouldn't lead feminism, per se. That seems a contradiction to me. But personally I would see value in not completely disregarding the capacity of men to potentially provide leadership and decision making in certain areas of a large scale movement, dependent on what is required and the individuals involved/available.

Yes I agree, I really meant lead it in terms of ideology. I'll give you an example, Robert Jensen-radical "feminist" wrote an article on transwomen. I haven't read it but I've heard some of the things he wrote were out of hand. Now as a cis straight male he shouldn't have wrote it. He isn't at high risk of sexual harassment or sexual assault or poverty or being prostituted like transwomen are, he doesn't experience homophobia. I follow the blogs of and have spoken to transwomen who are sex critical and radical allies and I certainly do not want straight men isolating them from radical feminism. This is the problem when people think it should be "equal voices and opinions" in feminist movements. And I disagree with any female radfem who thinks it's OK for Robert Jensen to do that. In fact I completely disagree with female rad fems who show transwomen no empathy, but that's a double kick in the face coming from someone who is very privileged as Jensen is. He should of stuck to educating straight men like himself on pornography.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes I agree, I really meant lead it in terms of ideology. I'll give you an example, Robert Jensen-radical "feminist" wrote an article on transwomen. I haven't read it but I've heard some of the things he wrote were out of hand. Now as a cis straight male he shouldn't have wrote it. He isn't at high risk of sexual harassment or sexual assault or poverty or being prostituted like transwomen are, he doesn't experience homophobia. I follow the blogs of and have spoken to transwomen who are sex critical and radical allies and I certainly do not want straight men isolating them from radical feminism. This is the problem when people think it should be "equal voices and opinions" in feminist movements. And I disagree with any female radfem who thinks it's OK for Robert Jensen to do that. In fact I completely disagree with female rad fems who show transwomen no empathy, but that's a double kick in the face coming from someone who is very privileged as Jensen is. He should of stuck to educating straight men like himself on pornography.

On the face of it, I agree with you. What you say makes sense.
Doesn't an ignorant opinion simply get howled down though? Wouldn't the validity or not of what he has said determine whether he is actually leading anything?

Even whilst I write this, I'm aware I am offering an ignorant opinion, but pretty sure you'll see it as an honest question (which it is).
Is the issue that he could mobilize some facets of feminism behind his voice, thus fracturing the movement as a whole? And how synchronized is the movement as a whole in any case? My working assumption is that it's not really a single movement at all, but rather an umbrella with broad goals, and disagreements on how these are best reached (regardless of who is leading).

None of that really offers anything in favour of men as leaders. I'm more of the opinion that not having lived through the issues in the same way would simply lead to their opinions having less impact than others, kinda of organically.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

On the face of it, I agree with you. What you say makes sense.
Doesn't an ignorant opinion simply get howled down though? Wouldn't the validity or not of what he has said determine whether he is actually leading anything?

Even whilst I write this, I'm aware I am offering an ignorant opinion, but pretty sure you'll see it as an honest question (which it is).
Is the issue that he could mobilize some facets of feminism behind his voice, thus fracturing the movement as a whole? And how synchronized is the movement as a whole in any case? My working assumption is that it's not really a single movement at all, but rather an umbrella with broad goals, and disagreements on how these are best reached (regardless of who is leading).

None of that really offers anything in favour of men as leaders. I'm more of the opinion that not having lived through the issues in the same way would simply lead to their opinions having less impact than others, kinda of organically.

I would say it is leading in this case. Straight men should definitely not be writing educative articles on why he disagrees with transwomen and feminism. His focus like I said should be helping to educate men especially straight men on misogyny. There are different branches of feminism that is correct. It's complicated. I'm giving my view on the basis of being a radical through and I don't believe our corner is very popular with men anyway. I'm not really considering straight men on the sex positive/liberal side because quite frankly I don't care what they think and would prefer not to deal with them any more on a lot of ideological issues.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I would say it is leading in this case. Straight men should definitely not be writing educative articles on why he disagrees with transwomen and feminism.

Should women? Because, quite frankly, I think it would be quite bigoted for anyone regardless of gender to "disagree" with transwomen or transmen merely because they are not cisgendered. In that case, straight cisgendered women could be argued to be just as privileged as their male counterparts compared to a transgendered person if we only consider the privilege of not being an LGBT person in a transphobic and/or homophobic society.

His focus like I said should be helping to educate men especially straight men on misogyny. There are different branches of feminism that is correct. It's complicated. I'm giving my view on the basis of being a radical through and I don't believe our corner is very popular with men anyway. I'm not really considering straight men on the sex positive/liberal side because quite frankly I don't care what they think and would prefer not to deal with them any more on a lot of ideological issues.

Do you think ideologies become less acceptable or legitimate based on the gender of the person espousing them? It seems to me that it doesn't make much difference whether a man or woman espoused, say, the view that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars or go out alone if neither the man nor the woman in question were in any position of power to influence legal changes in this regard. Actually, I have heard and read quite a lot of misogynistic stuff said and written by women. I don't think the fact that it is supported by women gives it any more legitimacy or logical justification.

I definitely agree that a lot of men abuse their privilege by promoting sexist views, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that there are women who freely choose to support those kinds of beliefs despite having the option not to. Just look at someone like Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin. It seems to me that it is rather simplistic to look at all issues from the perspective that sexism can necessarily be attributed to or traced back to a male in one way or another.

 

[Sunstone]

Just look at someone like Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin.

I'd actually prefer to look the other way, if you don't mind. Especially after just haven eaten.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Should women? Because, quite frankly, I think it would be quite bigoted for anyone regardless of gender to "disagree" with transwomen or transmen merely because they are not cisgendered. In that case, straight cisgendered women could be argued to be just as privileged as their male counterparts compared to a transgendered person if we only consider the privilege of not being an LGBT person in a transphobic and/or homophobic society.



Do you think ideologies become less acceptable or legitimate based on the gender of the person espousing them? It seems to me that it doesn't make much difference whether a man or woman espoused, say, the view that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars or go out alone if neither the man nor the woman in question were in any position of power to influence legal changes in this regard. Actually, I have heard and read quite a lot of misogynistic stuff said and written by women. I don't think the fact that it is supported by women gives it any more legitimacy or logical justification.

I definitely agree that a lot of men abuse their privilege by promoting sexist views, but that shouldn't cloud the fact that there are women who freely choose to support those kinds of beliefs despite having the option not to. Just look at someone like Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin. It seems to me that it is rather simplistic to look at all issues from the perspective that sexism can necessarily be attributed to or traced back to a male in one way or another.

No women should not, and I already said I disagree with a lot of radical feminists say about transwomen. That being said I disagree with some aspects of trans ideology too. But transwomen experience trans misogyny which crosses over to homophobia. Straight women have part privilege when it comes to the homophobia part. I would call out straight women especially. My point is when you come into a WOMAN'S movement (a movement that prioritises WOMEN and is for WOMEN) you should stick to what you should be doing as a man. I don't like to compare oppressions all the time but let's say with all the drama that happens with the LGBT movement, as a mostly straight woman I would focus on being a good ally rather than focus on creating ideology within that movement, despite whether or not I thought the "gays were being meanie to each other" I would respect their space.
The problem with what Robert Jensen did, is that his privilege can create a ripple effect where straight men who come to radical feminism think they should be arguing with transwomen all day, when transwomen are a minority and it's actually straight men who are the biggest threat to women. It allows them to turn their attentions away from improving themselves and each other, which is what they should be doing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

No women should not, and I already said I disagree with a lot of radical feminists say about transwomen. That being said I disagree with some aspects of trans ideology too. But transwomen experience trans misogyny which crosses over to homophobia. Straight women have part privilege when it comes to the homophobia part. I would call out straight women especially. My point is when you come into a WOMAN'S movement (a movement that prioritises WOMEN and is for WOMEN) you should stick to what you should be doing as a man. I don't like to compare oppressions all the time but let's say with all the drama that happens with the LGBT movement, as a mostly straight woman I would focus on being a good ally rather than focus on creating ideology within that movement, despite whether or not I thought the "gays were being meanie to each other" I would respect their space.
The problem with what Robert Jensen did, is that his privilege can create a ripple effect where straight men who come to radical feminism think they should be arguing with transwomen all day, when transwomen are a minority and it's actually straight men who are the biggest threat to women. It allows them to turn their attentions away from improving themselves and each other, which is what they should be doing.

Typically the bolder part is the very reason why IMO this forum was created in the first place. When feminist concerns were brought up in a debate in the open forums, the very existence of feminism, the word itself, and how feminists don't care enough about men were consistently the attacks laid out against the philosophy. Well within the rules, indeed, but it became tiresome to consistently follow this track every time the issue of rape statistics or sexual harassment or gender roles would emerge. Instead of actually discussing solutions, we would spend our time discussing and debating whether or not society ought to tolerate having feminism in the first place.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Typically the bolder part is the very reason why IMO this forum was created in the first place. When feminist concerns were brought up in a debate in the open forums, the very existence of feminism, the word itself, and how feminists don't care enough about men were consistently the attacks laid out against the philosophy. Well within the rules, indeed, but it became tiresome to consistently follow this track every time the issue of rape statistics or sexual harassment or gender roles would emerge. Instead of actually discussing solutions, we would spend our time discussing and debating whether or not society ought to tolerate having feminism in the first place.

Yep! And also the problem I find with straight men who come to feminism in general, they seem to be concerned with how women view men, what women think of them, are women resentful towards men in their spare time, is there "misandry" taking place here, then the actual fact the straight men are the biggest threat to women, and EACHOTHER!! MIND YOU!!!!!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have an idea.... how about instead of deciding whether or not men or male-identifying people at RF ought to be a part of the Feminist DIR, perhaps they should have the freedom to decide if a Feminist Ally sub forum DIR is their space if they identify more easily with that label?

I still wish to bring up feminist topics in the open forums, even where people post who truly and sincerely believe that feminism is misandrist and a threat to men's rights and shouldn't be in existence.

I'm sort of posting while I'm thinking and not really going over my thoughts with a fine toothed comb.

I'm thinking instead of restriction, shall we expand with education on subsets of the entire philosophy of feminism?And is that a point of reference back to the OP, how important is it to "sell" feminism to those on the fence without relinquishing our voices as women?

Indeed...this isn't simple at all. Lots of things to consider here.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I keep coming back to this:

Educate, educate, educate. Just like I felt and still feel in regards to queer rights.