Drowned in Sound

Search


Drowned in Sound Event sponsored tours and events.

can you have male feminists?

24 votes
?
by inside-outside

or is that an oxymoron?
I refuse to shave my legs and armpits in protest againsty tibet

inside-outside | 16 May '08, 10:39 | Send note | Report this | Reply

This. ^

Also.. I think you can have male feminists.


yes

indeed you can


why would it be an oxymoron?

mainstream feminism is just about women having equal rights and opportunities and status.


Of course

As long as they have penises


you can

though it runs the risk of you coming across as the sort of man who uses feminism to "control" or "protect" women, a sort of "no, can't let them see this horrible misogyny, i must protect them". see: the dude fro....actually, i'm not going to make wild accusations now.


:D

He didn't cross my mind at all from this thread came up...


depends within which discipline

within IR for example, there are male aythors who believe that IR theory is shaped far too much by male discourse, and that there is the need for a female influence.


you certainly used to do

I was one.
It meant I wasnt allowed to go out with anyone who
1)shaved armpits or legs (as you identified)
2) wore high heels
3) wore stockings
4) did their nails red
5) wore lipstick
6) ate meat (its all a macho conspiracy)

I was on well dodgy ground for liking the stranglers and have been rounded on and taken to task for this on several occasions


Being a male feminist

I was most dismayed when my sisters rejected me.

I was driving past greenham common in my escort crapavanette and gave a freindly wave of support to the sisters protesting there, they responded with two fingers and other gesticulations and jeers..... I felt rejected


i guess so

if it didn't sound too wanky, i'd probably consider myself one.


i think women would object to men burning their bras

they'd be all like 'hey thats my best bra you femenist bastard'. then they would shut a door in your face rather than holding it open for you.


that's true.

bras are fucking expensive!


and thus my standard reply is issued

don't wear them then! why hide away such precious goods. plus they are well hard to get off nd stuff

this doesn't apply to those with 'well droopy swingers' because, well i just don't need that shit in my life.


I don't think you can.

In the same way I don't think you can have white members of black power movements or black members of white power movements.

I mean I think you can have men who sympathise with feminists and believe in gender equality but I don't think they'd actually be feminists.


yeh surely not!!

isnt black power about taking the power back - so it makes sense that white people would want to join
but isnt white power just about racial supremacy and bigotry? why would a black person join that? unless they're a suicicidal emo maybe


Oddly it has happened before

or at least I remember reading an article a while back about a black woman who'd applied to join the US National Association for the Advancement of White People. No idea if she got accepted or not.

To me there's a fundamental difference between being a feminist and believing in equality. Technically speaking it's not dissimilar to being a racist, sexist or nationalist (in the strictest definition these mean that you believe the interests of your race, sex or nation should take precedence over those of other races, sexes or nations). Similary, however you dress it up, feminism implies a belief that the interests of women should take precedence over the interests of men. Male Chauvisnism is a closeer relative of Feminism than egalitarianism is.

I appreciate most people do use Feminism to imply a belief in gender equality but that's not really what it means and, in the same way that although not every nationalist will believe in conquering other countries, you can't escape from what the word implies.

And I can't really see why, unless you were a bit strange, any man would want to assert female superiority (rather than equality) so I don't really think you generally get genuine feminists who are male.


i strongly disagree

"feminism implies a belief that the interests of women should take precedence over the interests of men"

there's nothing wrong with advocating the interests of a discriminated against group. this is not the same as wanting those interests to take precedence, once equality is reached. you won't find many mainstream feminists who argue for a matriarchal society for example.

feminism = egalitarianism (wanting women to be on par with men)
feminism =/= female superiority


As I say above I accept most people use the word Feminism to imply egalitariansm

but I don't think that's the actual correct definition and it's not the definition I'd use. It's like the difference between nationalism and patriotism - subtle but quite important.

Whilst there's nothing wrong with advocating the inteersts of a dicriminated group I think there's everything wrong with advocating them over the interests of non-discriminated group. Creating a new prejudice or bias doesn't rectify a previous prejudice or bias, merely creates a new imbalance to replace the old one.

I see it impossible to reconcile an argument for doing so with a belief in egalitarianism.


but that's not what feminism is about

and feminism doesn't advocate the interests of women over men - it seeks equality with men. if you think that means it is seeking to prioritise the interests of women over men, well you could argue that about any movement - anti-slavery seeks to prioritise the interests of slaves over slave-owners?

i guess we just have different definitions of what feminism is.


Could that be because

there are various branches of Feminism?


yes

which is why i said mainstream feminism earlier.


Indeed

I was merely commenting on how two individuals could have their own definition of a concept which is actually various different concepts


I agree with Paul's definition.

It doesn't really matter if you talk about 'mainstream' feminism. If you talk about animal rights on here people starting going off about insane factions of PETA who like to kill people...Muslims have issues thanks to a few extreme fuckheads.

So essentially any movement is tainted by its worst aspects and I think Feminism has been tainted by men-hating, bra-burning nutters and so it makes more sense to call yourself an egalitarian.


from my experience

The processes which involve 'taking the power back' usually involve OTT protests and ations which dont redress the balance, but rather swing it in the opposite direction. In other words replacing one structure of domination with another


Not really.

Anti-Slavery doesn't seek to prioritise the interests of slaves over slave-owners.

You clearly haven't understood my point at all.


It's rude of me to write that and not explain myself.

The point is that with many (tho' admittedly not all) belief systems that are -ims (feminISM, NationalISM, SexISM, RaceISM, etc.), what that name implies is a belief system that interests of the Feminine, the Nationality you are, the Sex you are, the race etc. should be treated preferentially above others.

Anti-slavery is not an -ism so isn't really in any way relevant to the point I was making.


actually out of all the 'inverses' of movements on this thread

the idea of men promoting female superiority is actually the most sensible to me.
Our mothers were the first and foremost big caring figure. I love and adore women and would give them far more slack in everything. At school i lilked loads of female teachers I was either frightened of, wanted to challenge or punch the the male teachers, I thought they were gitty heirarchical tossers.....(not all were of course, but those that tried to be reasonable rather than forceful and confident sounding were described as being 'less masculine')
A lot of human attributes are ascriubed to a gender, which is bizarre and wierd and ties up with ideas of personal confidence and peer positioning. Its incredibly muddled and complex....I acknowledge that women can make the most awful leaders when we only have a few (like thatcher) but aethetically having a 'Goddess' seems a lot nicer than a 'God'
I have problems accepting that other males are more alpha than me...i would have no problem in accepting that a female might be the leader of the group.

paradoxically this actually makes me appear to be quite heirarchically macho which im not. Im not going to ruin my soul to get to the top of all males when it is merely artificial societorial constructs that provide the unatural measuring stick for leaders and power.

And Power is what the whole 60's/70's/80's feminist thing tended to be about (nowadays it mainly foicuses on equal pay and 'number' of women in government and judiciary and upper management)
In its purist form it wanst just about power of actual gender but also power of relative human qualities, thus the 'macho' nature of military matters also became an integral part of feminism to some. the feminists protesting outside of greenham common would not have been glad that nowadays some women can also now fly fast jets and bomb people.

The true feminist (in my view) should aspire to no one being unfairly falsely discriminated against (with opportunity or opinion) due to the mores of society when this is an artificial quirk of society and not nature. They should also aspire to not allow certain qualities to rule unfairly over otheres when it makes little sense to do so


^ when I say I like and adore women

perhaps its because of they indulge in less 'conventional male banter' which kind of leaves me cold, probably cos I was brought up by my mum and gran and most older blokes I knew just seemed to obiously talk a load of blustery bantery shite.

On this site there are loads of lovely blokes who do not care so much about appearing to be one thing or another...which is great.....I seek out people irl like this too, we all do I guess. I can do the gruff macho ting to and be perfectly disguised in old men pubs, and I like pushing them a bit, but I tend to know how far they will tolerate......of course with individuals and one to ones it is easy to get past roles and many an old macho bloke can easily burst into tears when your talking about life, if they feel they can trust you.


.

'feminism implies a belief that the interests of women should take precedence over the interests of men'

oh man that is SUCH bullshit. anyone who takes that as a foundation of their belief wouldn't count as feminist. the VAST majority of feminists would entirely reject as feminist one who believed in the superiority of women over men. the reason that feminism exists, essentially, is because women have very rarely had equality in the eyes of the law and wider society.

it's all very well trying to argue this on the basis of an '-ism' being inherently concerned with asserting superiority, but whilst this may be so for many '-ism's it is not part of the meaning of the word, the ending -ism actually technically defines a belief system without any reference to content. don't misappropriate that in order to justify a belief which is simply wrong!

ps germaine greer is not a feminist, she is a cunt. glad i got that out of my system


mainstream feminism isn't akin to any 'power' movements

and it isn't meant to be gender exclusive.

to be honest, i find the idea of *not* being a feminist weird. surely all right-thinking people are feminist?


No there was a time when you definately did

you see at one point the most extreme of the feminists also objected to many women who also seemed to support the status quo and traditional roles and values ( like Anne coulter does today)
Men like me who did not genuinely care whether women shave their pits or not were considered far more feminist that women who insisted that a woman should support a man in his career (for instance).

During a period of feminisms history the 'vanguard' of the movement was also concerned with the definition of femininity being synomynous with appearance (and artificially constructed/enhanced appearance at that)
They objected (rightly) to the definition of womanly being mostly associated with visual appearance, obviously we now all acknowledge that being a shallow society this is an agreed benchmark but for individuals this is of course bollocks so although hairy legged feminism might look ridiculous to modern sensibilities it did have some relevance.
Of course nowadays we are all celebrity seeking tarts so its kind of evened up, men also have beauty products now


bill bailey is a feminist

he wore a t-shirt saying so.


because of buffy?

cos that was as much about female empowerment as it was having a hot girl kick ass in a short skirt


Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joss_Whedon#Feminism

"Whedon identifies himself as a feminist, and feminist themes are common in his work. For his part, Whedon credits his mother, Lee Stearns, as the inspiration for his feminist worldview. When Roseanne Barr asked him how he could write so well for women, he replied, "If you met my mom, you wouldn't ask."[27]

The character Kitty Pryde from the X-Men comics was an early model for Whedon's strong teenage girl characters: "If there's a bigger influence on Buffy than Kitty, I don’t know what it was. She was an adolescent girl finding out she has great power and dealing with it."[28]

Whedon was honored at an Equality Now benefit in 2006: "Honoring Men on the Front Lines",[29] and his fans raised a considerable amount of money in support of the organization"


Aside from the

interesting debate going on in this thread..

To be technically correct - the best kind of correct - the answer is yes. Feminist 'theory' as method can be applied to a wide variety of research fields, separate from any notion of the 'struggle for equality' or any of that business.


^^ completely right

it is all about the methodological approach to research.. Much of the theories born out the enlightenment are weighted in 'masculine' doctrine..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists

apparently kurt cobain was.


I think that there is always some confusion because within the idea of

feminism you can have people who are just being humanist and wanting the individuals rights to be not curtailed by anything that society would like to pigeonhole that individual as.
There are lso more pragmatic feminists who felt that because male rights and power seemed (on the surface) nto be well catered and acknowledged, the only way to promote female power more was to fight (because many incumbant status quo supporters with power and influence, DID resist sensible reasonable claims for more equality....the incumbants with power basically shaped the direction that the feminists had to struggle with at the time...........nowadays its accepted that women should get equal pay for equal work...its just that the discrimination is with the demographic of the type of work and pay and coupled wit hthe type of work and gender distribution that produces the horrendous anomolies in pay..............in the past many people just resisted the idea of women being any good at say maths or science or technical stuff or being managers or leading or analysing or whatever ....really was a load of crap.
Hence many tried to advocate positive discrimination (which i am unhappy about but understand why people felt they needed to resort to it)

The consensus view seems to have shifted nowadays

So nowaday


.

obviously...


Well, of course you can

You're a feminist if you believe in equality of the sexes, and don't think that people should be reduced to simply what genitalia they have. And I'd say I, and most people on here, fit that bill.

Feminism really isn't this militant bogeyman that the media likes to portray it as.


yes, exactly

If you can argue that man can't be a feminist, then you are probably unaware of whole strands of feminism - in particular, the one that says women (and men) are more than a product of their genital organs (metaphorically).


I'm aware of all the strands

but I'd argue many of them aren't really feminism although they come under the same umbrella term. In the same way there are lots of variants of, say Socialism or Marxism where the person invovled would say they're practicing socialism or marxism but I'd argue it not to be true. And there's a danger of definitions of words getting diluted to the kind of meaningless nonsense where (to quote Coupling) "vegetarianism is about me saying yes to things - even meat".

I think there's a world of difference between believing in gender equality and being a Feminist. I'd definitely say I believed in gender equality but I'd certainly never describe myself as a Feminist.


yes, but that's because you believe a man can't be a feminist.

Why do you think a man can't be a feminist?


I've explained above

that, like most -isms, the most accurate and strictest definition of Feminism at its fundamental root is the beleif that the interests of the feminine should be prioritised above all else (in the same way racism strictly means promoting the interests of your race above all others and Natioanlsim means promoting the interests of your nationality of all others)

Obviously the defintion has got diluted over time and is generally used a by-word for equality but I disagree that this is what Feminism implies and I believe that being a Feminist inherently implies a desire to promote female interests over male interests (in the same way being a racist implies a desire to promote your own race over others and being a Socialist means a desire to promote the interests of your society above all others). However wooly the definition has become I don't believe you can escape this. And it would be unusual for a man to beleive women's interests are more important than male interests. They could feasibly of course but it'd be an odd position to take

And it strikes me as far more likely that a man would believe in gender equality than female interests taking precedence.


No

Really, that's just not true.

The "femin" in feminism reflects the fact that it looks at the female role in society, *not* that it is concerned with promoting female interests (although those naturally follow). To say it's inherently interested in promoting "above" men is just nonsense, because that's merely one of the resulting conclusions some feminists reach *after* looking at feminist issues in society.

And your other examples are just wrong. Seriously. Just because racism and nationalism have those structure doesn't mean that it makes socialism and feminism the same. The structures of words in english rarely follow grammatical rules like that anyway.

By your logic atheists all want to destroy religion. Your confusing the desire to promote a school of thought with the desire to promote the object of that school of thought.


*you're


Atheism doesn't imply religion

it implies an absence of God and promoting an absence of God in all your thinking on religion.


But that's still not enough

In my thinking, I don't consider god, yet if I apply the same bizarre linguistics you've displayed here anything that ends in -ism is an ideology concerned with promoting itself over another.

So, I can clearly think about things without considering god. Yet that doesn't translate to a belief in removing god in other things outside of my thoughts.


.

NO

'ism' refers merely to a system of belief or ideology. you're basing your argument on a false belief about linguistics