How can someone be a male and be a feminist at the same time?

[MoonWater]

If you disagree with everything I have said about feminism then provide some actual links on feminism instead of asking me for them.

Please, I would like for you educate me.

you're the one making the claim, as such it is up to you to provide the evidence, otherwise we have no reason to take your argument seriously.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

you're the one making the claim, as such it is up to you to provide the evidence, otherwise we have no reason to take your argument seriously.

I'm not making claims. I'm acknowledging the truth and I view feminism in its historical context. If you and others wish to accept the pop culture definition of feminism then good and i could care less if you or others don't take anything I say seriously.

I don't think people should do that because it takes away from what women actually went through in early America and still have to deal with in other parts of the world.

Feminism and the Women's Movement / Women's Leadership in America History

It has traditionally been defined and still is a women's movement.

National Woman's Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dust1n]

Just do a google search its not hard.

5 Reasons Why So Many People Believe Feminism Hates Men and Why They're Not True ? Everyday Feminism

Even this site on feminism acknowledges this.

The only feminist mentioned in that link is Valerie Solanas who was a.) completely insane and b.) The SCUM manifesto was an allegorical treatise about how women were treated at the time. I've never seen another example of any other feminist writer say anything remotely close to those things.

 

[dust1n]

Thank you Sandy! And I think I will.

Feminism deals specifically with women's rights and equality. It is a womens movement.

A male can be a supporter, sure, but not a feminist. I don't think the word should be changed or the meaning of the word should be changed to fit someones political motives or own self-interests to be politically correct just to make everyone happy (specially guys who want to be feminist).

A feminist is by definition a supporter of feminism. So if "a male can be a supporter" of feminism, than he is, by definition, a feminist. The only one who is concerned about changing meanings to fit political motives or self interest is the one who is asserting some meaning to a word contrary to its most common application.

Of course, I notice you just tend to ignore my responses in your thread, but I will continue pointing out every little flaw in your argument over and over.

 

[dust1n]

What does it acknowledge? Are you presenting this article written by a male feminist, which very persuasively argues that feminism isn't about hating men, to support your point that men can't be feminists and feminists are man-haters?

That's a strange choice!

Did you read that article? What did you think of the points he made?

I'm pretty sure he just googles "feminism hates men" and then sends us the first links that show up without even reading the information or finding out if it even supports what he is saying.

 

[dust1n]

Its not meaningless. It does actually mean something to me, but not the same way it does to other people who have completely distorted the meaning of the word with their interpretation of it.

Yes, the distortion is obviously found in multiple dictionaries. It isn't you, obviously, who is distorting any meaning to the word. It's literally everyone in this thread, and multiple men throughout history who claimed to be feminist, and most people in the country who have distorted the meaning of the word, and only you know really what the word means before it was distorted by the whole world.

No narcissistic psychological projection here.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I'm pretty sure he just googles "feminism hates men" and then sends us the first links that show up without even reading the information or finding out if it even supports what he is saying.

No, somehow someone starting talking about misandry (or man-haters ... which is a stupid word) and the site it is about feminism does acknowledge that it exists with some people (women) who claim to be feminist.
I agree with the article and its just a pointless argument that takes away from the real issues which is why there is really nothing to talk about when it comes to the site.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

Yes, the distortion is obviously found in multiple dictionaries. It isn't you, obviously, who is distorting any meaning to the word. It's literally everyone in this thread, and multiple men throughout history who claimed to be feminist, and most people in the country who have distorted the meaning of the word, and only you know really what the word means before it was distorted by the whole world.

No narcissistic psychological projection here.

I would just like to know if you have ever walked in a women's shoes.

If you haven't then why would you claim to be something you're not.

 

[Sir Doom]

I would just like to know if you have ever walked in a women's shoes.

If you haven't then why would you claim to be something you're not.

And if I say, "Yes."?

 

[dust1n]

I would just like to know if you have ever walked in a women's shoes.

If you haven't then why would you claim to be something you're not.

I don't claim to a woman.

I claim to be a feminist. I AM a feminist.

I really don't know how much more simple I could possibly ever put it.

A feminist does not necessarily denote the person is a female.

 

[dust1n]

No, somehow someone starting talking about misandry (or man-haters ... which is a stupid word) and the site it is about feminism does acknowledge that it exists with some people (women) who claim to be feminist.
I agree with the article and its just a pointless argument that takes away from the real issues which is why there is really nothing to talk about when it comes to the site.

But the article misrepresents your point. For example.

"#1 Because Some Individual Feminists Hate Men Surprised to hear me say that? It’s true. There’s no point in avoiding it, so we might as well start with it. Just look around the internet.
In 30 seconds on Google, I found this article (first page of my first search about “radical feminism”) and this delightful collection of quotes (my favorite: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” Thanks for the gem, Valerie Solanas.).
You don’t have to look very hard to find examples of “feminists” who hate men."


Somehow, we go from Valerie Solanas to "You don't have to look very hard to find examples of "feminists" who hate men." First of all, there is no feminist theorist who has ever written anything bad about men other than Valerie Solanas. So, yes, if someone was looking for a different example, it would be extremely hard.

Second of all, speaking of historical context:


Valerie Jean Solanas (April 9, 1936 – April 25, 1988) was an American radical feminist writer who is best known for her assassination attempt on artist Andy Warhol. Born in New Jersey, Solanas said that she was the victim of sexual abuse by her father; and, after her parents' divorce, she had a volatile relationship with her mother and stepfather as a teenager with her unruly behavior. As a consequence, she was sent to live with her grandparents. Her alcoholic grandfather physically abused her and Solanas ran away and became homeless. She came out as a lesbian in the 1950s. She graduated with a degree in psychology from the University of Maryland, College Park. Solanas relocated to Berkeley, California. There, she began writing her most notable work, the SCUM Manifesto, which urged women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex."[1][2]
...
She was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic and pled guilty to "reckless assault with intent to harm", serving a three-year prison sentence, including psychiatric hospital time. After her release, she continued to promote the SCUM Manifesto. She died in 1988 of pneumonia, in San Francisco.
...
Valerie Solanas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The SCUM Manifesto is a radical feminist manifesto[1][2] written in 1967[3][4] by Valerie Solanas. It argues that men have ruined the world and that women should overthrow society and eliminate the male sex.[5][6]


Reprinted at least 10 times, translated into 13 languages, and excerpted several times, the SCUM Manifesto generated a range of reactions, including that it was utopian, feminist, pre-feminist, crusading, and a call to act; accurate, symbolic, irreverent, funny, outrageous, and extreme; parodic and satiric but not a put-on; witty, shocking, and articulative of rage; nonviolent, a suggestion for retraining of men, a declaration that men would be killed, and a charter for violence; and misandrous; and that it sought a women-only world and that it wouldn't be necessary to kill men. The term SCUM was often described as an abbreviation for "Society for Cutting Up Men" but Solanas denied it, although the expanded term appeared on a cover of an edition she self-published. An organization did not exist, other than for one public forum with herself as the only member.
...
In 1977, Solanas told Smith and Van der Horst, "["'the society'"] .... s just a literary device. There's no organization called SCUM—there never was, and there never will be."[94] Claire Dederer said, "Solanas ... described [the term] SCUM as a kind of 'literary device.'"[64] Solanas said to Smith and Van der Horst, "'[she] thought of it as a state of mind .... [in that] women who think a certain way are in SCUM .... [and] [m]en who think a certain way are in the men's auxiliary of SCUM.'"[95]

SCUM Manifesto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, it's not even a correct sentiment about feminism as philosophy at all. Sure, plenty of people have gone on YouTube and have been feminist and some dumb stuff. Same is true for any philosophy or belief system. But "hating men" is no way common or "easy to find" as you seem to think it is. It's not exalted in feminist texts. No widely read feminist books talk about how bad men are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas#cite_note-2

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

But the article misrepresents your point. For example.

"#1 Because Some Individual Feminists Hate Men Surprised to hear me say that? It’s true. There’s no point in avoiding it, so we might as well start with it. Just look around the internet.
In 30 seconds on Google, I found this article (first page of my first search about “radical feminism”) and this delightful collection of quotes (my favorite: “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” Thanks for the gem, Valerie Solanas.).
You don’t have to look very hard to find examples of “feminists” who hate men."

... snip

So, it's not even a correct sentiment about feminism as philosophy at all. Sure, plenty of people have gone on YouTube and have been feminist and some dumb stuff. Same is true for any philosophy or belief system. But "hating men" is no way common or "easy to find" as you seem to think it is. It's not exalted in feminist texts. No widely read feminist books talk about how bad men are.

He used that one quote but referenced an entire list of quotes of women who have claimed to be feminist. They are actors, teachers, theorist, etc. I do agree though that no one would actually publish anything like that in a scholarly text, although I wouldn’t be surprised if people do. That is kind of like a well-known scientist posting a blog entitled “Creationist and brainless chimps”. It does nothing to promote science, just their own politically driven agenda to slander one group to make another look better. It does nothing to help promote feminism as a theory or philosophy. Which is why its better to view it in a historical context. I can understand why women would say stuff like that, but oversimplified generalizations are just stupid generalizations I guess. That fact that there are some feminist who do hold such views and are feminist is enough to make me think twice about any group of people that claim to be feminist.

 

[Alceste]

He used that one quote but referenced an entire list of quotes of women who have claimed to be feminist. They are actors, teachers, theorist, etc. I do agree though that no one would actually publish anything like that in a scholarly text, although I wouldn’t be surprised if people do. That is kind of like a well-known scientist posting a blog entitled “Creationist and brainless chimps”. It does nothing to promote science, just their own politically driven agenda to slander one group to make another look better. It does nothing to help promote feminism as a theory or philosophy. Which is why its better to view it in a historical context. I can understand why women would say stuff like that, but oversimplified generalizations are just stupid generalizations I guess. That fact that there are some feminist who do hold such views and are feminist is enough to make me think twice about any group of people that claim to be feminist.

You have never thought twice about feminism. You have not even thought about it once. This is clear from your posts in this thread. You're a reactionary. You hear the word "feminism" and reject it outright, based on fallacious assumptions, with no investigation, like a creationist reacting to the word "evolution".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You have never thought twice about feminism. You have not even thought about it once. This is clear from your posts in this thread. You're a reactionary. You hear the word "feminism" and reject it outright, based on fallacious assumptions, with no investigation, like a creationist reacting to the word "evolution".

Which brings up the question, can I be an evolutionist if I don't personally evolve? If not, which seems to be the case, then none of us can be evolutionists, which renders evolution false!

 

[Caladan]

For one, I acknowledge women as having equal rights, prochoice, and whatever else it is that women feel they are being neglected of, but how can a male or guy consider themselves to be a feminist when feminism is explicitly dealing with women and women’s rights?

I don’t see how a man, male, guy, etc. can be considered a feminist when it deals specifically with women and the choices they make; as in a guy claiming to be a feminist. What would a feminist male (as hyperbolic as that may seem) have to do with women rights?

I guess a man would advocate feminist issues, in much the same way some whites advocated African American rights several decades ago.

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

You have never thought twice about feminism. You have not even thought about it once. This is clear from your posts in this thread. You're a reactionary. You hear the word "feminism" and reject it outright, based on fallacious assumptions, with no investigation, like a creationist reacting to the word "evolution".

I'm just not that gullible like most people and actually apply some critical thinking to different topics of interest. You should try it!

 

[uberrobonomicon4000]

I guess a man would advocate feminist issues, in much the same way some whites advocated African American rights several decades ago.

I can agree with this. A supporter of equal rights.

 

[Sir Doom]

I'm just not that gullible like most people and actually apply some critical thinking to different topics of interest. You should try it!

You should post it! The critical thinking, that is. I haven't seen it yet.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

He used that one quote but referenced an entire list of quotes of women who have claimed to be feminist. They are actors, teachers, theorist, etc. I do agree though that no one would actually publish anything like that in a scholarly text, although I wouldn’t be surprised if people do. That is kind of like a well-known scientist posting a blog entitled “Creationist and brainless chimps”. It does nothing to promote science, just their own politically driven agenda to slander one group to make another look better. It does nothing to help promote feminism as a theory or philosophy. Which is why its better to view it in a historical context. I can understand why women would say stuff like that, but oversimplified generalizations are just stupid generalizations I guess. That fact that there are some feminist who do hold such views and are feminist is enough to make me think twice about any group of people that claim to be feminist.

Which feminist writers have you read? Not wiki entries. Not cliff notes. But sat down to read the actual writer's works themselves. Can you name them?

 

[MoonWater]

I'm not making claims. I'm acknowledging the truth and I view feminism in its historical context. If you and others wish to accept the pop culture definition of feminism then good and i could care less if you or others don't take anything I say seriously.

I don't think people should do that because it takes away from what women actually went through in early America and still have to deal with in other parts of the world.

Feminism and the Women's Movement / Women's Leadership in America History

It has traditionally been defined and still is a women's movement.

National Woman's Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If it's "true" then you should have no problem coming up with a credible source to support your argument, like a dictionary definition or some writings from actual feminists writers. What makes you think you have the truth and that it's everyone else who's twisting the definition of feminist?