Are you a feminist?

[Alecto]

I find it very short sighted when people say that men, especially poor or minority men, can magically change things overnight in regards to how they are affected by patriarchy. The truth of the matter is, and always has been historically, that there are a select group of wealthy men (who are white in Western culture, but have been other races in other places) who perpetuate patriarchy, because patriarchy really only benefits the men who are in charge. We see that reflected so much in the "Victorian Fantasy" that is frequently posted on fundie blogs, forgetting the poor, working class folks who slaved for menial wages to make the posh Victorian life possible.

You know, I consider myself a feminist, but there are times I really really don't like using that label, especially considering the history of transphobia.

[desertvixen]

Perhaps though the words are merely a distraction. I think the issue that people who are fighting for their own liberation need to have some exclusive space, even while welcoming allies to their fight who are not actively experiencing the oppression (and in fact those people can use their extra access to the levers of power to move others in their OWN groups).

I would agree with this.

[CanadianHippie]

I find it very short sighted when people say that men, especially poor or minority men, can magically change things overnight in regards to how they are affected by patriarchy. The truth of the matter is, and always has been historically, that there are a select group of wealthy men (who are white in Western culture, but have been other races in other places) who perpetuate patriarchy, because patriarchy really only benefits the men who are in charge. We see that reflected so much in the "Victorian Fantasy" that is frequently posted on fundie blogs, forgetting the poor, working class folks who slaved for menial wages to make the posh Victorian life possible.

You know, I consider myself a feminist, but there are times I really really don't like using that label, especially considering the history of transphobia.

+1

And we need to work to change the whole thing, not just the parts that affect us.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

It's more than finances though. It's the psychological and emotional effects as well.

Finances make a HUGE difference in being able to leave an abusive relationship. An abused man will be more likely to have a stable job, and to get another one if leaving the relationship causes him to loose his job, than an abused woman, who is more likely to not be up on her job skills due to taking care of the kids and will face the usual workplace hurdles because she is a woman.

[CanadianHippie]

Finances make a HUGE difference in being able to leave an abusive relationship. An abused man will be more likely to have a stable job, and to get another one if leaving the relationship causes him to loose his job, than an abused woman, who is more likely to not be up on her job skills due to taking care of the kids and will face the usual workplace hurdles because she is a woman.

But becoming a survivor instead of just a victim depends on more than just finances. Finances get you out they don't, however, provide emotional support, or healing. Thats what support groups and counselling are for. But if none of the counselling with see a male victim, and none of the support groups are open to male victims, they lose out on a huge part of moving on.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

But becoming a survivor instead of just a victim depends on more than just finances. Finances get you out they don't, however, provide emotional support, or healing. Thats what support groups and counselling are for. But if none of the counselling with see a male victim, and none of the support groups are open to male victims, they lose out on a huge part of moving on.

I'm not disputing that point.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

And men can't make a support group for male DV victims because why exactly? Why is the assumption that the only place they will ever be able to get support or healing is from a group run by women? Why assume it's that or nothing?

[CanadianHippie]

And men can't make a support group for male DV victims because why exactly? Why is the assumption that the only place they will ever be able to get support or healing is from a group run by women? Why assume it's that or nothing?

It's not that they can only get support from a group of women. It's that when they try and start support groups people get up in arms because men are trying to find support and "taking away from the fight against domestic violence."

[Glass Cowcatcher]

It's not that they can only get support from a group of women. It's that when they try and start support groups people get up in arms because men are trying to find support and "taking away from the fight against domestic violence."

I've said it before, I think "The family court is overrun by feminists!!!" is going to be the next justification to take rights away from women. So, while I know there are some men who are genuinely abused and would benefit from services, I'm generally suspicious of an ulterior motive when I encounter individuals and groups supposedly promoting men's rights.

[CanadianHippie]

I've said it before, I think "The family court is overrun by feminists!!!" is going to be the next justification to take rights away from women. So, while I know there are some men who are genuinely abused and would benefit from services, I'm generally suspicious of an ulterior motive when I encounter individuals and groups supposedly promoting men's rights.

And here we have the problem. Where helping men deal with the emotional and psychological affects of having been in an abusive relationship = group promoting men's rights.

[BlackHawk]

I've said it before, I think "The family court is overrun by feminists!!!" is going to be the next justification to take rights away from women. So, while I know there are some men who are genuinely abused and would benefit from services, I'm generally suspicious of an ulterior motive when I encounter individuals and groups supposedly promoting men's rights.

And this ideology is exactly why you don't find support groups for just men who have been victims of rape or DV. If a woman does it, it is powering the women's movement. If a man does it, he is advocating taking rights away from women. As a male rape victim, I would have loved to be able to find a group of other men to talk with in a supportive setting. It just doesn't exist because people think we have an ulterior motive. Sad really.

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Canadian & BlackHawk--

It's a very fine line, to be sure, and I don't know where to draw it. :(

I definitely think that the need IS there, but so many of the men's rights groups I read seem to be apologists for abusers. For example, promoting the idea that rape or abuse statistics are over reported. If anything they are underreported. Neither gender benefits from this divisive attitude.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

And yet people have long been against the idea of groups fighting for women's rights also! These things don't just materialize out of thin air, people fight for them and yes, sometimes it's painful and people misjudge your ambitions - goodness knows there's been plenty of vilification and wondering about the vile "feminist agenda" for ages.

I'm sort of reminded of one type of response to the "It gets better" campaign - people started coming out of the woodwork complaining about it because "but why is only for gay kids? Straight kids get bullied TOO, kids get bullied for all sorts of reasons." Well yeah, they do. And no one is stopping anyone from starting a all-encompassing "stop bullying" movement. But somehow it was a problem with "it gets better" movement because they wouldn't just expand it to all. As if somehow it was easy for the "it gets better" movement to start up.

The only complaints I see against discussion of men's DV services is when it only ever seems to come up as a topic when someone is discussing a women's group or feminism, and then all of a sudden it's the "but it's unfair! Men are abused too!" topic that takes over the entire conversation.

[emmiedahl]

I am so not a fan of "what about teh menz????" in topics regarding female exploitation. I think there should be ample services for men who are victims of the same societal issues that affect women. I don't think I need to be told how I am not as oppressed as my oppressors or compare my experiences with other minority groups to see who really has it the worst, a phenomenon I call The Pain Olympics. I am allowed to care foremost about my own self-interests as a member of various oppressed groups. This is not to belittle anyone else's experiences. They are also allowed to care more about the plight of whatever oppressed groups they belong to.

However, I think if a man identifies as a feminist, the absolute wrong thing to do is to tell him why he is not. I just feel an aversion to it, that it is counterproductive to disenfranchise a person who intends to be an ally with (most likely) pure intentions. Feminism is fundamentally a belief in the equality of women. If a man wants to join that parade, imo we should encourage it. It is really healthy for a male to contemplate his position in society, coming to the conclusion that he has an unfair advantage and it should not be that way. I know there is a bit of controversy over this. I just don't want to get into "Who is a *real* feminist?" What about a transgendered woman? Can she be a feminist? Only transgendered women who have identified as such for the majority of their life? Only after they have had reconstructive surgery to give them female genitalia? As victims of patriarchy, we should be strong and cohesive, not divided and nitpicky. The victims of patriarchy may have different experiences but we need to be able to fight together without belittling each other or arguing about whether people can define themselves and their ideology.

I agree that the Feminist Movement is centered mainly on the experiences of white, advantaged heterosexual women. I think this is because these were the women who had the most opportunity to speak out in my mother's generation. It's not some plot, just a byproduct of the demographics. I see a lot more lesbian and minority voices coming out in recent years and I hope some other female voices will be added as well.

[Cannelle]

Thank you for this. I caught part of her interview the other day and wanted to read the book, but forgot about it. I just put it on hold at the library, although it'll be awhile- 40 holds on 2 copies. S'ok. I'm all about spreading the feminism. :)

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I am so not a fan of "what about teh menz????" in topics regarding female exploitation. I think there should be ample services for men who are victims of the same societal issues that affect women. I don't think I need to be told how I am not as oppressed as my oppressors or compare my experiences with other minority groups to see who really has it the worst, a phenomenon I call The Pain Olympics. I am allowed to care foremost about my own self-interests as a member of various oppressed groups. This is not to belittle anyone else's experiences. They are also allowed to care more about the plight of whatever oppressed groups they belong to.

This, exactly.

There are definitely men that experience domestic violence and rape, and suffer because of it. It is WRONG, however, to try to correct that in a way that burdens or blames women as a whole. It's a very Joanna Russ type of argument.

[desertvixen]

It's a very fine line, to be sure, and I don't know where to draw it. :(

I definitely think that the need IS there, but so many of the men's rights groups I read seem to be apologists for abusers. For example, promoting the idea that rape or abuse statistics are over reported. If anything they are underreported. Neither gender benefits from this divisive attitude.

QFT. But I also agree that there is an expectation that women will do a lot of the "touchy-feely" work in our society because that's just our arena, and that isn't right either.

[Alecto]

So, I have been thinking more and more about the original question "Do you have a vagina?" This is not a "What about the menz" thought, but a thought about those who exist outside of the cigender binary. By that statement, you are excluding transwomen and people who don't identify as either male or female. Granted, that's been fairly par for the course with radfems who don't feel as if transwomen don't have a place in feminism.

So, perhaps the best question is "Do you want someone else to control what you do with your reproductive organs?"

[Austin]

Okay, for chrissakes, did anyone actually listen to the interview?

Caitlin Moran is, among other things, a humorist. Her book is a humorous one, from the passages she read on the air. I found the way she crystallized (sorry, oversimplified to some :roll: ) the essence of being a feminist both humorous and spot on. I'm sure she in no way meant to suggest that if one doesn't have a vagina, one can't be a feminist/ally of feminism. I do not believe it was her intent to make the issue a completely exclusive one. Nothing whatsoever is said about those who do not possess female genitals. It was simply a statement that if one does have those parts and would like to control them, one is a feminist.

[deelaem]

Score another victory for the patriarchy.

[Rosa]

I agree that the Feminist Movement is centered mainly on the experiences of white, advantaged heterosexual women. I think this is because these were the women who had the most opportunity to speak out in my mother's generation. It's not some plot, just a byproduct of the demographics. I see a lot more lesbian and minority voices coming out in recent years and I hope some other female voices will be added as well.

Remember that just about any Famous Feminist you see outside the feminist publishing houses or academia is there because their message appeals to the mainstream media. Those opportunities to speak go to the people whose message is most congruous with the mainstream.

[lindsey]

Okay, for chrissakes, did anyone actually listen to the interview?

Caitlin Moran is, among other things, a humorist. Her book is a humorous one, from the passages she read on the air. I found the way she crystallized (sorry, oversimplified to some :roll: ) the essence of being a feminist both humorous and spot on. I'm sure she in no way meant to suggest that if one doesn't have a vagina, one can't be a feminist/ally of feminism. I do not believe it was her intent to make the issue a completely exclusive one. Nothing whatsoever is said about those who do not possess female genitals. It was simply a statement that if one does have those parts and would like to control them, one is a feminist.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Caitlin Moran said anything about people without vaginas not being feminists.

From what I can see people are simply reacting to deeleam coming into the thread and once again deciding who is and who isn't a True Feminist and then berating people for having a different opinion (seriously, if people disagree with deeleam, the patriarchy wins? :roll:).

For the record, I absolutely agree with Caitlin Moran and it annoys me to no end when people (especially women) act like being called a feminist is a slur.

I just don't agree with the RadFems who seem to have a huge amount of disdain for all people - including other women - who don't see things exactly the way they do.

[Austin]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Caitlin Moran said anything about people without vaginas not being feminists.

From what I can see people are simply reacting to deeleam coming into the thread and once again deciding who is and who isn't a True Feminist and then berating people for having a different opinion (seriously, if people disagree with deeleam, the patriarchy wins? :roll:).

For the record, I absolutely agree with Caitlin Moran and it annoys me to no end when people (especially women) act like being called a feminist is a slur.

I just don't agree with the RadFems who seem to have a huge amount of disdain for all people - including other women - who don't see things exactly the way they do.

I guess it was the way people who clearly hadn't bothered to listen immediately took to charges of "oversimplified" and "what about the menz"? Really? Do we have make sure that we love on the menz every single time we discuss feminism? The people I adore most in the world are four men. But they are white men and as they are the "default" in our society, they hardly need me or any woman looking out for them. They have never and will never experience the shame, harrassment, and inequality that I have, even as a white woman.

In my view, and I admit I am still learning on this subject and expect I will be for the rest of my life, misandry /= misogyny. Charges of misandry are easily and predictably thrown around here by a few. While both are wrong, the balance of power that is created by the patriarchy makes it impossible for anybody accused of misandry to have much negative impact on men in our society. The opposite is not is so not true. Such discussions cannot take place in a vacuum where the issue of power and who has it and who doesn't is not recognized as a huge factor.

I truly regret posting this to begin with, as it went over like a lead balloon. Duly noted.

[Alecto]

Part of my issue is, and will remain, the simple fact that radfems want to exclude non-cisgendered women from feminism. I think this says it better than I can

[itsnikki05]

I guess so! I figure men are no better than women, women are no better than men. People should be treated individually, and assumptions about a person based on their sex is wrong.

ETA: And I AM a Christian. I never really thought about labels beyond that, if it makes me a feminist then SURE, I'm a feminist. I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. Heck, I might be talking out my tush, but that's just my views. Anyways.