I like your post. I've been really interested lately in issues of masculinity. a couple of anecdotes:

Recently I was out with my brother, my (male) cousin, and my boyfriend. My cousin and I were having a conversation about gender dynamics, and he abruptly turned to my boyfriend and asked "you're a man, how do you put up with her and all her gender-feminist bullshit?" to which my boyfriend replied, "well, I agree with her." It was a pretty cool thing to see him own his feminism in front of the guys. It's something that takes a lot of courage, I think, and I think they ultimately respected him for not playing along with their macho act.

Also, I took a class last semester on African American Feminist Lit, and a man in the class, towards the end of the semester, said "I know I'm not a woman or anything, so It probably doesn't matter, but I think...."

It killed me that in the months we'd been in the class no one had made him feel like his thoughts were valid.
It really made me see that, while I think women's spaces are a good thing, feminism and gender theory are not only for women.

How can we make them more accessible to men?

Kathryn: good for your boyfriend! I can only hope that my boyfriend would do the same in that situation.

Kudos for writing about this issue!

Sexism definitely affects men--there are all sorts of ideas and images that both men and women are supposed to try to live up to in order to fit into society's ideals of what a man/woman is. I'm a women's studies major and just telling my boyfriend what women's studies is completely changed his views of feminism. To know that my classes aren't all about man-bashing actually surprised him and we ended up getting into a deep discussion about oppression/prejudice/discrimination. So, I would say that just getting the truth out there definitely makes a difference. Many people don't have any idea how powerful of an influence culture and society has and how oppressed women and other minorities still are. So, my advice: SPREAD YOUR KNOWLEDGE!

I completely agree with what you've said here, and I think it's one of the most valuable social and political goals out there.

That said, I always wonder how we can incorporate men into feminism in ways that allow "feminism" to remain the correct term for the movement we are a part of. I am not talking about the participation of men in feminism, identifying as feminists, or being incorporated into examinations and analysis of gender ideology, which I fully support and see as valuable. I think what I am talking about goes a bit more into the goals and projects that feminism and feminists take on.

Now, I believe that the ultimate goal of feminism should be to have abolished sexism to the point where it doesn't need to exist anymore [though obviously historically it would remain VERY prominent!]. That is a source of many debates, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Obviously the time has not come for that, and I think we can all agree there. To me, however, making "men's issues" or masculinity distinctly feminist issues does a lot to erode the meaning of the word "feminism" to describe us, although obviously remains consistent in addressing the goal of gender equality, which affects men as well as women.

Wouldn't the incorporation of specific, male-oriented [although they are all connected, definitely] goals, such as the difficulty boys are supposedly facing in school right now [a common male rights activist statement], make us more humanist than feminist? I am not saying that that is a bad thing, necessarily, but I am not sure I am ready to let go of feminism, even while acknowledging that issues of gender affect all genders. Maybe that makes me selfish?

What do others think? Is it possible to achieve these goals and projects while still maintaining the label "feminist" as a correct designation? Am I just missing the point?

Someone a few days ago posted a comment about feminism being "overly confrontational", and i think that it was a good point.

Feminists have good intentions, surely, but there are many men (myself included) who feel that feminism is too tolerant of misandric rhetoric.

Even after browsing this blog on and off for about a year now, it is still unsettling to read some of the comments posted here. It can be hard to not take alot of it personally.

Also, despite its egalitarian sentiment, Feminism is a movement created by women and catered specifically for women. Why should a man feel welcome to a movement that does not acknowledge his existence? Male issues are usually ignored....

Can a man really identify with self-proclaimed "vagina warriors"?

"Feminists have good intentions, surely, but there are many men (myself included) who feel that feminism is too tolerant of misandric rhetoric."

Agreed. If you need to ask for proof on this site, that's the entire point of that mindset.

And from what I have read of Feminism 101 and elsewhere, I thought despite the name, feminism was about the entire picture. Why is it not about "men's" issues just as described in the OP? (I would hardly say sexism affects men 49 percent of the time however, or at least, not as a hinderance.) There are in fact, feminists devoted mainly to male issues, or so I have read IIRC at Feminism 101. Why is being "humanist", "letting go of feminism"?

"Can a man really identify with self-proclaimed 'vagina warriors'"?

I thought that this post was really intriguing and I can definitely see where it must be difficult for men to feel welcome to feminism. I believe that that is a flaw in the feminist movement. Yes, it's about women and catered toward women because it was created in a time when it was one of the only things a woman could say was her own. But I don't think that sexism should be fought without looking at both sides. However, this DOES NOT justify misogyny.

I also believe that including men in the feminist movement is not about relating to women's specific issues ["self-proclaimed 'vagina warriors'"] but about having similar issues. Both men and women have societal expectations to live up to--this is a similar issue. Both men and women are insulted in ways that are directed toward women [women are called sluts, c***s, etc. and men are called pussies, girls, etc.]--this is a similar issue. And sexism in itself is a similar issue--it is just used in different ways toward men and women.

The issue here is that there are many different definitions of feminism and people all have their own experiences to add to that definition. So, some people may believe that adding men to the feminist mix would cause a loss in that definition, while others believe differently.

"Feminists have good intentions, surely, but there are many men (myself included) who feel that feminism is too tolerant of misandric rhetoric."

Qwerty: you are exactly right. I am starting to think that the mission for so-called fourth-wave feminists (are we in the fourth wave?) is to bring men in, and to put an end to the misandry. It's not productive, and just because SOME men (not unlike SOME women) are assholes, doesn't mean that all of them are. Don't we always say that you can't judge an entire segment of the population based on the actions of a single individual? Isn't it prejudiced to do that? It is. And we have to stop acting that way toward men.

Thanks for the feedback.

Most of my posts don't attract concurrence.

I thought that this post was really intriguing and I can definitely see where it must be difficult for men to feel welcome to feminism. I believe that that is a flaw in the feminist movement.

I'm responding to the multiple posts and general theme of the thread, but I feel I need to start with this comment.

Men feeling welcome or not in the feminists movement is NOT a flaw in feminism.

Of course feminism makes many men feel uncomfortable, that is a given. Because of male privilege. Men are used to being the center of attention and being able to apply anything that goes on with them and their lives. Feminism refocuses on issues that effect women and on women's lives. Suddenly being taken out of the equation when you are accustomed to having access to it is disconcerting, and their discomfort is predictable.

We see this same reaction any time an oppressed group carves a space for itself. White feminists respond in this way to women of color. Able bodied people respond this way to dis-abled people. Straight people respond this way to queer people. This is the way privilege works, you don't realize you have it until it is taken away, that is your wake up call, and if you want to be an ally, from there you have to deal with it!

Identifying the roots of discomfort, analyzing and coming to terms with it, is absolutely vital to a man's journey into feminism (and all the other above examples). He cannot be an ally if he retains his male privilege unacknowledged. And we would be undoing our own work to carve a space within feminism for him to do so.

We deal with sexism and misogyny and discomfort in spaces not our own all the time ("paying our dues"), a man's dealing with privilege-denial induced discomfort for the first time in his life are his. And his response to that is too important to his personal growth to try and shield him from it.

I'd love to see a fourth wave that makes good on the lip-service given to "but feminism helps men too." Sadly, the experience Kathryn relates about her African American Feminist Lit class echos my own experience all too well. Granted a women's studies class at Berkeley during the height of the sex wars (yes, I'm dating myself) wasn't the exactly friendliest place for a man taking a women's studies course.... Though to be honest, it was an... ah... educational experience to have been routinely ignored, have my experiences dismissed, been told that of course I was potential rapist, etc. because my gender. Which is unfortunate, because they alienated someone who came in the door as a would-be ally.

As far as how sexism hurts men... It's been well cataloged by various "men's liberation movement" writers of two/three decades ago (NOT the same as "men's rights activists). Folks like the early Warren Farrell (before he went off the deep end). Yes, some of comes across as whining, but I think that's in part due to the frustrations the writers had of being largely ignored by feminists of the time, if not dismissed as "what about the menz" concern trolling. (And might I remind folks that the "The Feminine Mystique" was initially dismissed as "the Chateau Lafite of whine.")

For a more contemporary litany of hurts, I'd highly recommend reading Norah Vincent's "Self Made Man," about her 18 months spent posing as a man. Instead of the world of male privilege she’d been expecting, the strains of “being a man” (and of her double-life) lead to a nervous breakdown. While flawed, I'd definitely put it on the required reading list for a gender studies class. (I've got an extensive review on my blog.) Especially since even though many of her observations are both well documented by the men's libbers and fall into the "well, yeaaaah" category for men, they seem to be pretty eye-opening to many women, judging by the reader reviews and reaction Vincent got on her book tour.

Speaking personally, I'm sure my own chafing at the limitations of masculinity are probably one reason I became a crossdresser (i.e. I'm a man who enjoys appearing as a woman part of the time, but unlike transsexuals, has no interest in transitioning). Growing up there just weren't too many public role models for a brainy, artsy boy who wasn't that into sports (think of a hetero version of Ted from "Queer Eye.") I was able to butch up enough to avoid being (literally) beaten up, but it wasn't any more fun than for women who force themselves into gender straightjackets. I'll make no claim that being en femme, even out interacting with the public, gives me full insights into what being a woman is like. (Though it gives me glimpses, such as it's one thing to know intellectually about women's safety issues and another to realize, late at night while you're walking back to your car, that you're being followed, and how far and fast can you run in these heels.) But it does allow me to express a side of myself that society deems "feminine." (For me that includes being able to be more emotionally expressive -- one of the things Vincent found the most constraining. As well to adorn myself in the same ways that femme lesbians find appealing.) And no, being metrosexual (which I am in guy mode) isn't freeing in the same way.

A key task for such as four-wave feminism is taking a hard look at the blindspots women have about gender, particularly in the ways that women can enjoy privilege. For example, I think most women (and feminists) are unaware of is how men are presumed to be predators, and how wearing that can be. For example, I can't smile at small children without their mothers reaching out to them protectively -- let alone go and interact with them in the way that women do routinely. Likewise, it would need to look at the ways women police men's gendered behavior. In "Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity," Julia Serano talks about how, when she was a man, her women friends would routinely hassle her for not conforming to masculine gender expectations. As Vincent puts it: “Somebody is always evaluating your manhood. Whether it’s other men, other women, even children. And everybody is always on the lookout for your weakness or your inadequacy, as if it’s some kind of plague they’re terrified of catching, or, more importantly, of other men catching.”

This movement would also need to re-examine the way women's experience are given primacy in "gender studies." Michael Kimmel, author of "Manhood in America: A Cultural History," put it well: "There have been some attempts to tell the story of American manhood—by woman. But many feminist analyses failed to resonate with men’s own experiences. Not a surprise, since women theorized about masculinity from their point of view, from the way women experience masculinity." FWIW, Kimmel makes a convincing argument that while women aren't unimportant to men's efforts to prove their manhood, American men largely define their masculinity in relationship to each other -- the fear that we won't "measure up" (itself a revealing phrase), that we aren't "real men." (There's not really a female equivalent to the admonition: "be a man!') For more than two centuries, Kimmel says, "American men have been haunted by the fears that they are not powerful, strong, rich or successful enough."

Finally, the name "feminism" may be an inherent stumbling block. Imagine I started as "masculinist" movement with the goal of liberating men (and women) from sexism. Would you sign-up? Or would the name give you pause? Likewise, there's problems with the misandry that tolerated as well as sweeping generalizations often made. Yes, I know that to "insider feminists" that "men are" really means "these men are," but slapping down men being too stupid to figure that out (as has happened even here on a regular basis) isn't exactly a way to make feminism something they'd want to embrace. Over at the My Husband Betty forum, where I'm a moderator, we work hard to remind people that it's really not that hard to insert qualifiers, such as "most people" instead of talking about "people." This isn't about "being nice to the menz," nor is it comprising one's ideals, it's simply part of the art of getting people to see your point and honor it, even if they disagree with you. 'Cuz if how one says something causes people to tune out, you're not likely to be effective in convincing them to change their views.

Anyway, thanks for raising the issue Rachel!

"Identifying the roots of discomfort, analyzing and coming to terms with it, is absolutely vital to a man's journey into feminism"

I've accepted a good deal of Feminist theory.

However, to somehow rationalize misandry within a declared eqality movement, is unthinkable.

Why should I identify with a movement that embraced bigots such as Dworkin and Solanas? Why should I be like a log-cabin Republican, who believes and identifies with a movement that believes my existen ceto be an abomination?

Feminism has never directly affected me in real life, make no mistake, it only makes me uncomfortable to see people loath half of humanity.

and great post, lenaD

However, to somehow rationalize misandry within a declared eqality movement, is unthinkable.

Nobody was asking you to do that.

Why should I identify with a movement that embraced bigots such as Dworkin and Solanas?

Nobody is asking you to do that either.

But they were part of the women's liberation movement. And they were women, individuals in their own place and time and with their own life experiences. Learning how to be liberated, casting off their own personal shackles. So yah, they're part of feminism. That doesn't mean all feminists embrace them. I don't relate to a lot of Dworkin. Hell, I don't relate to the entire anti-pornography wing! I have my own beliefs and goals that exist within the larger construct of Feminisms. And that's what being in a large and diverse movement is all about.

Why should I be like a log-cabin Republican, who believes and identifies with a movement that believes my existen ceto be an abomination?

And here's where I start having a very difficult time taking you seriously. Are you really trying to equate the overall feminist movement with Dworkin? If you honestly think we are totally entrenched in the viewpoint of two feminists and haven't evolved in the forty years since they wrote, you're not paying any attention.

In fact the more I re-read your posts the more convinced I become that you're only a thinly veiled concern troll.

I understand much (though of course not all) of the sexism that men face. I grew up with my father and brother being the most constant people in my life, neither of which could be called macho men. I have always been friends with a lot of males who didn't fit the expected roles (and always tried to make sure that they felt comfortable being themselves around me, sex and gender aside). I even went through a period where I felt like I should have been male, an idea that was quickly corrected when I cross-dressed and hated who I became, since I compensated for my actual femaleness with an absurd amount of machismo. I made sure I married a man who was comfortable with his feminine side and never ridicule him for it (why would I, anyway?). I want men to be liberated as much as I want women to be liberated, and this definitely comes from my humanist beliefs.

But I'm a feminist because women, in spite of the gains of feminism, still have it worse. Vastly more women are in poverty than men. We still get paid less for equal work, are expected to do more housework no matter how many hours we work outside of the home, etc. etc. etc. So when I hear men say that they don't feel included in feminism, I have to wonder why they think they should. Feminism is about equality, of course, but it is a distraction from that goal to devote time and space to men's issues because men and women aren't equal. Eradicating sexism is definitely a tool towards equality, since sexism is the tool that the patriarchy created to keep women unequal, and it's an important part of it, but acting like it is the same thing is, I believe, foolish and dishonest. Before we can devote equal amounts of time and space to stopping sexism as you guys are suggesting, we need to actually make men and women equal. Until that happens, women will continue to get the shorter end of the stick and feminism will continue to be a movement primarily about achieving equality for women, rather than erasing sexism against both genders.

The best analogy I can think of is if a woman and a man were both sitting in uncomfortable chairs. The man has most of the pillows that can make the chairs more bearable, and yet when the woman asks for more pillows so that they will be divided equally between the two of them, the man's response is, "It's only fair if you give me a few of your pillow's first," ignoring the fact that the division of pillows will still be unfair in the end. It's definitely easier to demand pillows in exchange, since you can then decide that no exchange even needs to take place - both can just keep the pillows they already have, since they will still have the same amount in the end - but you can't call it equal.

I also meant to say that I wish there was a way for men to be/act/look sexy that didn't have to do with muscles, strength, and power. Men shouldn't have to benchpress a certain amount just to be considered attractive. Nor should a man who has supposedly feminine features or ways of moving or acting be considered less attractive. Not that models should be the standard for anyone, but if you look at male models, they are always flexing their muscles, looking hard and inaccessible, never smile, etc. A man acting or looking like a woman in certain ways can be very attractive, and I wish that would be reflected more in the media so that guys would know that it's okay.

"Nobody is asking you to do that either."

Duh. But the question was raised: why are men repelled by feminism.

"Are you really trying to equate the overall feminist movement with Dworkin?"

No. There are others, but she is a good example of un-denounced bigotry. And i'm not suggesting that feminism is generally bigoted.

"In fact the more I re-read your posts the more convinced I become that you're only a thinly veiled concern troll."

I'm sorry you feel that way.

(oh, and if you could tell me how to italicize quotes, that would be great)

I think there is a slight (possibly academic) distinction between feminism and feminist. And it is not just that a feminist believes in feminism.

The simple def. of feminism is the idea that women should have equal rights/privileges socially, economically, and politically. Hard to argue with.

Feminist, on the other hand (as my is my experience) view almost every interaction, especially economic, social, and political, through gender lens.

For example, the debate over choice/abortion becomes a debate of patriarchy abrogating womens sovereignty over her body rather than a arguement over the life of the child/fetus/zygote.

It is a matter of how people view the world. Many men may not view the world through the same lens as feminist do. Many women may not view the world through the feminist lens. They may apply different filters and use different cognitive frameworks when they interpret reality.

Once again, feminist are separated by that cognitive framework, and it is that framework that is why many people could accept the ideals of feminism but not be feminist.

Thoughts?

"I have to wonder why they think they should."

Because it's this simple: if feminism does not "appeal" to those in power, e.g. elected officials (mainly privileged white males in the US) and those who elect(ed) them, there won't be too much effective change. Make fun of McCain or those of his kind (even all Republicans, anti-choicers, or those with Abrahamic or Christian background) all you like. Continue to not understand how people can back him or those like him. I don't get it either. But it's what HE thinks of women that matters, as long as he is in office.

"Feminism is about equality, of course, but it is a distraction from that goal to devote time and space to men's issues because men and women aren't equal."

The same term could be used of issues affecting women in mainstream US culture or the middle class in industrialized nations, vs. those affecting billions of other women and children. But it would be uncouth to invalidate the concerns of the so called middle class white educated American feminists. I see women of color are not extended the same courtesy.

"I also meant to say that I wish there was a way for men to be/act/look sexy that didn't have to do with muscles, strength, and power."

There is: adopt a non-western expectation of what it is to be male or masculine, e.g., what young Japanese women consider attractive in men in appearance and behavior or demeanor (including fashion, and devotion to hair and skin care) is likely to be considered positively effeminate or "gay" in the US. Please refer to popular Japanese actors, singers, and other celebrities, or male leads in fiction like TV and movies to see the difference between men desirable in Japan and in the US. For example, Japanese entertainment phenomenon SMAP:

http://cafe.mehompy.com/cafe/CafeFolderList.asp?cid=SMAP&list_id=452&folder_no=5&list_page=1

Still going strong 17 years after their debut as singers and dancers, do not expect them to be promoted in the US anytime soon, because not even women in the US would be able to accept them. The tallest and heaviest of them is 5'11", and 156 lbs. My favorite of them, Takuya Kimura, is billed at 5'8" and 128 lbs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSAsQ-ju428
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdSJjoq04mA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NBIjC6k7Cs

Yes, that is very "mandom" to Japanese women, as Toshiro Mifune days are long over. Kimura's also done women's lipstick commercials. In Japanese survey, he was voted the ideal father for a number of years, as well as their sexiest man.

Wow! Thanks for all the great discussion, guys and gals! This is better than I could have hoped for.

LenaD: That was a great comment. I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to a lot of issues, especially where sexism hurts men (having your manhood questioned when you're in man-mode).

Whatshername: bingo. We all have to take a look at where we are societally and consider what of our experiences is affected by privilege. As a white, middle class woman, I have a certain amount of privilege. I admit that, and I do my best to have compassion for those who do not have my privilege and I still want them to have the opportunities I have. When I explained the privilege issue to my boyfriend, he got it immediately and has called himself "the feminist boyfriend". :)

Steven: I think the reason people will accept the ideas of feminism but not want to call themselves feminists is because being a feminist is seen as confrontational, and of course, it's not fashionable to be confrontational unless you're a manly man. And what manly man would be confrontational about feminist issues? I will agree, however, that there is a lot going on with those of us who call ourselves feminists that alienates others who agree with the idea. To some extent, these things can be mitigated, but we can't stop raising our voices about injustice; however we must include the injustices that affect others, not just ourselves.

-Rachel

What about that whole congitive stuff I was talking about. I felt like you talked right past my comment.

In regards to being confrontational, I don't think that is the exact issue

Also, feminist have a perception of not being open to other perspectives on their chosen issues.

I didn't intend to talk passed your comment, I just wasn't sure how to respond to it... which is probably evident in my response.

Addressing men's issues as afterthoughts, I think, is something that a lot of contemporary feminists are trying to fix. But there are many feminists to feel a lot more strongly about women's issues because much of the time women are taken for granted in our culture, we're expected to put up with things that men are not expected to put up with, and so for a lot of feminists women's issues are the ultimate and men's the penultimate or less (and yes, I will admit I only phrased it that way so that I could use the word "penultimate"). This is partly, or mostly, because women still have yet to achieve equality in most arenas. That doesn't make it right to ignore men's issues (male circumcision anyone?), but that is a reason why these issues don't get addressed.

@ waxghost -- I wouldn't necessary have a problem a feminism that overtly stated that it's about "women's issues," much as you've done. In my time, I led a major lobbying effort, so I know intimately how focus (i.e. how narrow or how wide) is a definite issue any movement has to contend with.

What's irritating is how often feminists simultaneously assert that men should support feminism "because it helps the menz too" and yet make it pretty apparent that men's issues are an afterthought, such as the example Steven mentions. So it's not surprising that men often have trouble seeing how feminism is supposed to help them. I'm not saying feminists are intentionally blowing off men's concerns -- it's just the natural tendency of people to focus on the issues that are most important to them. (A corollary is that it's the people who devote the most time and energy in any movement or group end up setting the agenda, consciously -- or more commonly -- unconsciously.) As I said before, I see it as more of a blindspot for many feminists.

Yes, we really do need a men's liberation movement, in parallel to feminism, which would share many of the goals, but also focus on issues such paternity leave, etc. that are of special interest to men. Is that likely happen? I doubt it, since the first rule of masculinity is that you don't talk about masculinity. Quite literally it can be beyond men's imaginations, much as (white middle-class heterosexual) women in the '50s couldn't conceptualize what was gnawing at them until "The Feminine Mystique" came out. I'm reminded of a story Lillian Rubin relates in her book "Intimate Strangers: Men and Women Together." Over the years Rubin has built a success practice so she and her husband agree that he can quit his job to pursue his life's dream as a writer. (Her husband also put her through med school, so Rubin thought it was only fair to support him for a change.) But Rubin soon discovers she hates the pressure of being the sole breadwinner. If she doesn't work, the family doesn't eat. She tells her husband that if she were a man, she'd be leading the revolt. He gently replies that if she were a man, she wouldn't even imagine there was any other way.

That said, I do think it's in feminism's interest to pay attention to men's issues, even if they're not the focus. Because trying to change only half the equation is far less likely to achieve the desired changes. I.e., if men are less worried being seen as unmanly when it comes to doing something, they're more likely to do it. For example, Kathryn's boyfriend seems pretty self-assured to brush aside her cousin's challenge to his manhood about putting up with Kathryn's "gender-feminist bullshit." Other guys probably would've knuckled under to that sort of masculinity policing. Likewise if the cousin saw that feminism addressed some of his concerns (as well as others that he might not care about, and some that he might disagree with), he would've been less like to level the challenge in the first place.

Similarly things are less likely to change unless women take a look at how they also police gender. (FWIW, that's one reason I really hate using the term "patriarchy" instead of "institutionalized sexism" -- because doing so replaces some fairly complex power dynamics with a simple scapegoat that absolves women from owning their role in things.) For example, every time there's a study showing men do less housework, it gets framed as "lazy men." When in reality there's a variety of issues at play. Such as do these studies' definition of "housework" also account for yardwork and other traditionally "masculine" unpaid work that's part of running a household? (They may, they may not -- I've had a hard time finding out.) There's the issue of men taking on household work, but repeatedly being told they're not doing it the "right" way (i.e. the woman's way) until they stop doing it. Yes, there are differences in who is the one in a relationship who's more tolerant of clutter, and as well as the fact that men may in fact start out being more inept at cleaning, cooking, etc. due to lack of practice. But often when I've seen this scenario play it, there's more going on -- it's a case of while the woman may hate doing the housework, she's also unwilling to let someone else do it in a way that "doesn't meet her standards." Which in a way is understandable, because women do judge other women (sometimes harshly) on their housekeeping abilities. But that's often a competition that men are oblivious too. (There's clean and go-over-things-with-a-white-glove clean.) So without taking those sorts of issues into account, we're not likely to see more equality in the amount of time spent on housework.

@ Rachel -- While it's a much bigger topic, I think one reason people are willing to accept the ideas/ideals of feminism but resist calling themselves feminists is in part a branding issue. (Hey I deal with branding as part of my job, so I bring that analysis to bear.) But that's in part due to self-inflicted problems. Naomi Wolf's "Fire With Fire" has an excellent, and still relevant, critique of areas where feminists alienated people. (And while the rest of the book is uneven, I think Wolf makes a really good point -- one sadly overlooked -- at how women, feminists in particular -- need to become more comfortable with power (in the same ways that most men are comfortable with it).

FWIW, the power issue is akin to a related issue; it's not that men are incapable of expressing feelings, it's that the feelings many men are most comfortable expressing (anger, competitiveness, etc.) are ones that many women find themselves the least comfortable with (and conversely many men are the least comfortable with the sorts of emotions many women are the most comfortable expressing). Yes, the universe does have sick sense of humor....

Men already have a framework through which their concerns can be addressed. They have the power to effect change in society. Yes, they run into problems with their needs are counter to the male stereotype but...it seems like individual (heterosexual, white, cisgender) men have a lot less to overcome.

I hate to say it but I just don't have a ton of sympathy for them. Yes their issues are important, and gender constrictions on the whole are important to me. BUT, as a woman, I have my OWN shit to worry about, and my non-white, non-hetero, non-cis sisters have a whole lot of other shit I want to help them with.

Feminist men should get together and work on their own issues, that's not my job. I know that doesn't sound very nice, but seriously guys, we're doing it with a lot more standing in our ways.

I am a man and this question interests me. I would say that the idea of a 'male feminist'
is a bit obscure because most men who support woman's rights and gender equality would define themselves as Humanists. I believe I am progressive and open minded, but I think you will find that men such as myself will be resistant to feminism not because it threatens to undermine whatever power and dominance we are meant to hold over women, but because it assumes a certain presumptuous understanding of male psychology and takes an adversarial stance between men and women. There is some baggage associated with modern feminism that will undermine the ability of modern men to embrace it. Ideas embedded into the speech that seem to say that sex and gender are biologically determined and that men and women are locked in binary dualism, two sides with opposing interests and each struggling for supremacy. And yes I do mean supremacy, if you must divide people into groups with opposing interests then the result will most certainly be a contest of win or lost at the expense of someone else. That is why progressive men will identify as Humanists, not because we are afraid that our peers will challenge our 'masculinity' or 'machismo' but because we believe that in a liberal democracy equality is a group project. I support absolute equality of all races and both genders, but sadly men like me are taken for granted in this current atmosphere of resentment and suspicion. To boil down the male Humanist perspective I would say that feminism does the right thing for the wrong reasons, and anti-feminism does the wrong thing for the right reasons. Women should have all the rights and opportunities as men, not because men are selfish and oppressive and primitive, but because both genders respect and value one another. There seems to be a lot of assumptions about male psychology among feminists, and most men, will find these assumptions to be very inaccurate. For instance how often do these articles contain phrases like 'most men' or 'many men'? It assumes that all or most men think and feel a certain way, without seeking the perspective of the sort of men outside the type of men those articles criticize. There also seems to be this theme that given to our own devices, that is, without the intervention of social theorists, men are like animals and need to be carefully trained and conditioned like dogs to make us more gentle and docile and suitable for a place in society. Like I said, equality is a group project, so I think it would be better to start from a perspective that sees men and women as equal to begin with, without resorting to labeling men as fundamentally aggressive and woman hating. I know that the 'men are all jerks' idea is NOT the official position of feminism and feminists, but you must admit that much of the current literature and discourse seems to seem that way. That's about all I can say I suppose, male Humanist perspective for what it's worth. Feminism does the right thing for the wrong reasons. Women and men should be treated as equals because they ARE equals, not because men are jerks and wont listen to reason.

-Whatsername

Your last comment is exactly why men don not call themselves feminist, and because there is this schism in feminism that feminism looks hypocritical.

It is also why many women would not call themselves feminist. Many feminist are not able to transcend sex. When I read your comment my brain basically translated it is "You should help us fix our problems but go pound sand when it comes to yours."

Steven,

I would like to jump in and respond to a few comments here.

You write:

The simple def. of feminism is the idea that women should have equal rights/privileges socially, economically, and politically. Hard to argue with.

Feminist, on the other hand (as my is my experience) view almost every interaction, especially economic, social, and political, through gender lens.

But that is the definition and mission of feminism. It is the idea that women should have equal rights and privileges as men. That definition is basically through a gender lens. It says nothing about class, race, or many other relevant things in life. And that's okay.

I think you're mistake is to be a feminist you have to see everything through a gender lens. Feminism generally does see everything through a gender lens. But no feminist is completely defined by his or her feminism. I'm a man who has come to embrace feminism. While it's a strong aspect of my thinking, it obviously does not define me. But when talking and thinking about feminism, I'm generally thinking about gender, and that's okay.

For example, the debate over choice/abortion becomes a debate of patriarchy abrogating womens sovereignty over her body rather than a arguement over the life of the child/fetus/zygote.

Exactly. But they are both legitimate interests. The life of the child and the life of the woman are the two most important concerns there are. For the woman, the decision to have a child is one of the most important decisions in her life, and ownership of her own reproductive organs is one of the most fundamental bases of her equality. If it wasn't for feminists, the religious fundamentalists would define the debate solely as a matter of the fetus, or with women only as an afterthought. It's only because feminists bring forth the woman's perspective so strongly that a balanced debate is able to be held at all. I owe somewhat of a debt to both sides for helping me form my views.

It is a matter of how people view the world. Many men may not view the world through the same lens as feminist do. Many women may not view the world through the feminist lens. They may apply different filters and use different cognitive frameworks when they interpret reality.

I think the point is there isn't just one lens of viewing the world. Just because you have a feminist lens, it doesn't mean you can't have a student's lens, or an artist's lens, or a humanist's lens, or a scientist's lens.

Feminists focus on maternity leave more than paternity leave because more women are likely to take advantage of that leave. It is one thing that is biologically influenced. In the first few weeks of life, the mother can do more than the dad. But I have never heard of feminists proposing a family leave plan that excludes men.

Ideas embedded into the speech that seem to say that sex and gender are biologically determined and that men and women are locked in binary dualism, two sides with opposing interests and each struggling for supremacy.

I guess I don't see it that way, because feminists demands are usually couched within a moralist framework: Not always, but almost all of the time, they are arguing for equality, not superiority. You need to provide more examples where feminists are calling all men or making broad generalizations about men being selfish or primitive. Usually I find that feminists are responding to specific actions by specific sexist men, who really are acting selfish or primitive. I'm also sympathetic to moralist arguments from anti-feminists. When anti-feminists couch their arguments in terms of equality, I am actually quite sympathetic to them. I am a Humanist first, as well. But most of the time that is not the case.

I see readers require some proof.

Here is what was posted today under "Sex Workers vs. Feminism".

"God men are pigs!

"At the end of the day men just think about one thing - having sex and dominating women.

"Let’s face it, what have the brutes achieved so far? War, rape, child pornography. All fuelled by there insatiable ego and desire to have intercourse! I almost feel sorry for them."

I shall wait and see if this poster's words are condemned, and the poster banned, and this posting deleted, as would likely happen if the poster were obviously male, referring to women.

This is NOT a matter of, "it's not about you," and "you shouldn't take it personally if it's not you," this is MAN HATE, and you can try telling me how it is not. What have men achieved? Well, for better or worse, men achieved most of what we have today (since women were mostly not allowed to be involved). What would women have done if they were in control, or what would society be if society had always been egalitarian? I don't know. However, just today on this site I read a claim that modern hunter-gatherer societies are the most gender equal, and patriarchy did not exist before invention of agriculture. I hope that does not suggest a limit on human development or ambition if aggression is suppressed.

I agree with Steven on whatsername's comments. She wants us to screw off. Fine. It sounded like the poster (Rachel) was wanting something different, and that is worth responding to.

As for "men have the power to change society", that's not so. A few men in the Forbes 500 have the power to change society. Most of us only have the power to change our own lives and if we're lucky a few lives within our vicinity.

Usually I find that feminists are responding to specific actions by specific sexist men, who really are acting selfish or primitive...

If you just focus on what the jerks are doing then it kind of sends a message that men are the problem. It's like watching the evening news, they focus on all the bad things that happened that day. Why not have articles about good things men have done to further women's rights? Would that be selling out or something?

Even this website is all about 'zomg some jerk did this' and 'zomg some redneck did that'

If you want to truly defeat the argument that feminism is crippled by simple man hating then why focus solely on jerks?

A male,

Ugly comment, you are right. Fortunately it was not representative of the original poster!

teletype,

Because, for the same reason that the evening news does not report that a crime did not happen or that an accident did not happen. That kind of thing shoul d be normal. It sounds like you want articles like that just to make men feel good. Fighting sexism means exposing sexism, which means focusing on sexism where it's there.

I disagree the take on whatsername's comments. It's not "screw off" at all. I believe this view on men's discomfort with feminism is quite accurate. You'll see it on MRA and antimisandry sites and blogs. Empowering women simply must mean taking power from men, they believe. The way white people deal with being removed from the center of attention when it comes to issues mainly affecting people/women of color (or simply not getting what it means to be a person/woman of color) is similar.

I agree that the average man is not privileged in the same manner as the elites of society who hold the "real" power), as is pointed out by certain MRAs, but that does not mean that men do not have the collective power to change society, or improve or destroy the lives of women within that society. Men not allowing women into their circle of academia or into technical jobs is not "a few lives." Men not allowing women into or providing a workplace supportive to women and families, is not "a few lives." "A few lives" times 150 million American men just so happens to be every other man, woman and child in the country.

"It sounds like you want articles like that just to make men feel good. Fighting sexism means exposing sexism, which means focusing on sexism where it's there"

Would that make men feel good about themselves? That wasn't exactly what I meant to say, but would it be so bad if they did? This topic is supposed to be why there aren't more male feminists, so, what should the approach of a good male feminist be? 'Gee all those other pigs sure are a-holes but not me, I'm smart enough to be ASHAMED of being a man!'

What I'm saying is that equality is a group project. If you divide people into opposing groups then the outcome is competition and not cooperation.

So there should be articles about women and men working together in harmony. Yes there should be articles about sexism, but if it's JUST about sexism that is going to make men feel bad, regardless of weather or not that was the intention. And why would I want to be a part of something that makes me feel bad about myself?

Group project. Somebody help me here.

teletype,

Because, feminism is not about men feeling good about themselves. It leads to cooperation in the sense that it builds equality. There can't be cooperation without equality. There's nothing wrong with men feeling good about themselves, but men should be able to do it without seeking validation and approval from feminists (which is dependency, not equality). That much should be self-evident. If the dichotomy is between feeling ashamed to be a man and demanding the time and praise from feminists to maintain self-esteem, you are stuck between two bad choices.

Qi

This topic was originally supposed to be about men not being involved with feminism because they are the victims of sexism and other men would put them down, but it quickly became a debate between men and women about the adversarial stance of feminism towards men.

Feminist should share approval toward men who help the cause, maybe not validation, but I don't recall using the word validation.

Your attitude seems to be that indeed women and men are on two opposing teams, am I wrong?

So should I or should I not be a feminist if I believe in total equality. If you really want me to go do my own thing with other dudes as a humanist and not a feminist then just say so, because I really don't know.

Do feminists really want men involved in feminism? Again a genuine question because I truly do not know.

I would very greatly appreciate it if someone would answer one simple question...

Are women and men on one team or on two?

Because the way this discussion is going it seems to be an opposition between to groups with opposing interests. If that is the case then just come out and say it.

Teletype

In many way it seems that they are not two teams, but three...

1) males concerned with continuing patriarchy (to use feminist jaron)

2) women who want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy

3) people who what equality.

And when people from the outside see women who label themselves feminist use the quoted detailed in A male earlier post, it looks like many feminist are in camp 2, not three.

The very name femininst represents a movement that is unable to transcend the problems of gender. Dispite any intent the use use of -femin- is pro female at the expense of men as masculinist would be pro-male at the expense of women.

Words matter...

Also, the focus of feminist observations are centered on female interactions with problems, and not necessarily the larger problem...

A lack of maternity leave is a women's problem witch is part of a larger problem that devalues family, father and mother at the expense of someone elses profit.

I totally agree with you Steven

Patriarchy = Supremacy of men, no interest in equality

Matriarchy = Supremacy of women, no interest in equality

Humanism = Equality

As long as the focus is going to be on 'ZOMG MEN ARE SUCH FAIL' then feminists will never be able to shake the man-hating stereotype. As long as they see themselves as a separate group with a unique agenda they will either achieve supremacy or stay oppressed, but will never create a just and equal society. And no, cooperation will never come from groups who see themselves as seperate, only hostility and confrontation. Hostile confrontation cannot lead to cooperation, I do not see any logic in that.

Also, from a single OP in feministe:

"First, what the fuck is up with men calling themselves feminists?"

"I don’t call myself a feminist, because it’s not my call whether I am or not. It’s women’s call . . . "

"Making a big melodramatic display of tagging oneself with the 'feminist' label seems like transparent male cookie-seeking at best, and cover for some seriously nefarious wackaloon shit at worst . . . "

"(Of course, maybe tagging myself with the 'I don’t call myself a feminist' label is just more subtle cookie-seeking! HAHAHAH!)"

Yes, get that man a Klondike Bar. Thank you to all those (Yes, I am guilty of saying "you feminists" on Feministing) who also feel this way about men. This is why I can never call myself feminist, even if I happen to agree with or support you and your views. If men feel alienated from feminism (or even meet open "fuck you" hostility, if one is say, Christian Fundamentalist or Republican, or simply ignorant and stupid enough to make blatantly sexist comments in mixed company), I do not see how one can expect average, "unenlightened" men to be supportive of women in the workplace, within a relationship, or in the voting booth, either. And men in positions of actual power like Bush or McCain? You'd need to actually prove to them why being supportive of women or siding with feminists is in their best interests (or the best interests of the USA), but instead they get a big "fuck you." That won't win the support of such men, but their support is what you need. One can't expect power to be in the hands of Democrats all the time.

"Ugly comment, you are right. Fortunately it was not representative of the original poster!"

I am aware the poster of the OP did not write it, nor do the editorial staff actually condone it, but I will wait and see what the reaction will be. Tellingly, no readers have yet condemned it, and they are not banned by editorial staff. I believe the same is true of almost 100% of anti-male comments that come up in reaction to OPs about e.g. rape and sexual assault. To me, that means a lot about how tolerant they are of such views. I just so happen to be one of those who does not need to be castrated, and did not need my penis beaten with a heated stone or wooden spoon as a child to prevent rape.

"This topic was originally supposed to be about men not being involved with feminism because they are the victims of sexism and other men would put them down, but it quickly became a debate between men and women about the adversarial stance of feminism towards men."

OK. My experience of men's sexism against men. Briefly.

Only my own physical limitations as a teen (5"3', 100 lbs., the size of my mainly Asian-American female classmates and petite women) led me to basically give up on conforming with traditional views on what it meant to be male, despite all the negativity from other males such as friends who freely used words like "pussy" "faggot" "queer" and all other words hurtful to self conscious males. I had never been raised to be physically coordinated or even to like sports, and continue my indifference to this day. Even hours per week in the gym at university alongside varsity football players and following Joe Weider magazines like Muscle & Fitness did nothing but prove I'd never measure up to these ideals of masculinity (I was then 5'7", 135 lbs., 8.6% bodyfat, and I could run ten miles at a time if I felt like it). So I basically said screw it (and also screw women who could not accept me as a man for who I was - it was a lonely time until I found some women who liked "kind" guys instead of those with money, influence and muscles). My decision to "challenge" traditional masculinity was not motivated by feminism, but a simple desire to be true to myself, because what were my other options?

My decisions to make careers of teaching and nursing were also strictly personal. Fortunately, men have not harassed me over these decisions, the way many male nurses report harassment or being viewed as muscle (by female coworkers) or "gay" (by men). Interestingly, only women have been questioning (but not hostile) over my decision to be a nurse. Even instructors asked me why I did not go into medicine, or urged me to go on to be a nurse practitioner (master's degree), rather than have only an associate RN. Uh, because it's my choice, and anyway, I can't afford to be out of the workforce for more than the three years I've already sacrificed, losing my entire life savings?

I think understanding how sexism and feminism affect men is so fascinating, and it only appeared on my radar recently. Bob Jensen has some interesting stuff out there about the topic, if you're interested. Some people find him a bit polarizing, but I think he has something worthwhile to offer.

Anyways, what I was thinking about when I read this post was an article by a male author who worked in the DV movement beginning in the 70's or 80's. Being one of the only men in the field, he described an experience where he met with a group of women at a conference, and was quite uncomfortable to feel outnumbered and seemingly unnoticed. His reflection on the experience, some years later, was that he felt uncomfortable not because the women were against him, but because they were not about him.

Basically, he was saying that because of his male privilege he was so used to being 'more important than,' that not being the center of attention actually felt like being opposed or othered. I would be interested to hear other men's feedback about this POV, but I wonder if maybe feminism and feminists claiming space in which men are not the priority can feel threatening to men? In the dichotomous society in which we live, I think it's easy to confuse wanting some space with wanting YOUR space.

So I guess what this ramble was leading towards, is that in order to include more men in the work (as well as women who are turned off by the idea of the f word) I think that it is critical to clear up misconceptions about the supposedly antagonistic nature of feminism. If people understood feminism as a progressive, inclusive, positive movement I think they'd be less defensive.

MurphsMomma

I am going to address your second to last paragraph.

If this male author was use to being the center of attention, but was not the center in a group of women, it means he was the center of attention in two situations

1-mixed gender groups
2-completely male groups

In either one his ability to exersize a supposed male privilege is in sit 1 diminished and in sit 2 abolished by the presence of other me.

Hearing about this guy, feeling like the center of attention and more important than other people, he sounds like someone with ego problems in the first place, no wonder he was prone to insecurity.

Not reading the article, there could have been other dynamics involved. He could have not known anybody, a difficult situation for some people. Maybe he was the least experienced person there on the subject matter.

...Basically, he was saying that because of his male privilege he was so used to being 'more important than,' that not being the center of attention actually felt like being opposed or othered....

...but I wonder if maybe feminism and feminists claiming space in which men are not the priority can feel threatening to men? ...

This idea that men have to be the center of attention like babies is rather simplistic. If someone is criticizing you and blaming you for all the worlds problems you deserve the right to defend yourself. Yes people have the right to their own space but if they had their way I'm sure they would have no problems taking MY space.

...If people understood feminism as a progressive, inclusive, positive movement I think they'd be less defensive....

I think the fact that this was posted in a site that features a section called 'Friday Feminist Fuck You' deserves an irony award of some kind.

Yikes! People get psyched about this commenting stuff!

@Steven - You're right. I didn't mean to claim that my thoughts completely explained what was going on with men and feminism...and I probably didn't do the article justice...What I was trying to get at, is that there is a level of male privilege that folks are accustomed to. So (generally speaking) in situation 1, men have more power, and in situation 2, other power structures come into play. It goes back to the idea of intersecting identities for me.

@teletype - I was merely offering one possible contributing factor, not some grand solution. Feminism, for me, is not about blaming men for my problems, nor is it about criticizing others...it is about claiming respect and equality. Furthermore, I believe that assessing my world critically is not only acceptable, but crucial. We make progress through critical analysis, and I don't think that this naming of reality deserves a bad rap. As for taking your space...no thanks, I don't want it :)

The FFFY...

If you look at the comments for "Check out all the community post" you will see the first comment is me asking if I have been censored.

I created a post called "Gadfly Question" which I had written as sort of a 'challenge your position/perceptions' post and it was regarding the FFFY.

(Here is the short version, I did not save a copy before I attempted to post)
I stated there was a percieved problem.

Femininisting was created to show feminism in a good light.

The FFFY reenforces the idea of feminist as angry women

The Thurday Thank You is not a proper counterbalance. It is not a video post and some of them have been half-hearted.

I then suggested the quality of the TTY be improved and requested thoughts

>>>
>>>

For that I was called a troll. I was called a troll for offering constructive criticism to help this site improve itself.

I normally don't get this involved in message boards.

But anyway, to get back to the original topic.

The OP seems to say that women and men are both the victims of sexism, so actually man do have something in common with feminists because they have an interest in ending sexism.

Let me make a slight distinction here, if I want to become a ballet dancer, but all the macho dudes at All American High say only weirdos and queers and commies are into that kind of thing, I would say this would be an issue of arbitrary gender roles, and while this does coincide with sexism it isn't exactly the same thing. Women and men both certainly are forced into gender roles that may not suit them, but I would define sexism as discrimination based on biological gender, and not necessarily sexual orientation or outward appearance.

If me and all the effete, effeminate, highly sensitive poets, intellectuals, and other assorted sprightly elves got together to discuss our common lot it wouldn't be in terms of sexism or feminism, it would be something else. We would call ourselves the dandy boys and lament societies artificial demands.

As well intentioned as many of you honorable feminists may be, it is alienating to hear man-bashing. And man-bashing is man-bashing.

Also I have to object to this white male privilege thing, if you could walk in my shoes you'd know that in some places being a white male is much more problematic that not being so, I know some people will never believe that but I'm sorry to say it's the truth. And it's not like I once had privilege but it was taken away, I NEVER had privilege and neither did my ancestors, but now I'm being told that for all the past sins of people who sort of looked like me I must pay the price.

Anywho, Steven, if you are a gadfly I will call you Socrotes.

This is actually a very vital and stimulating topic, everyone here is pretty intelligent and articulate. All you autonomous feminoids keep on rockin, weather you care or not I'll support your cause from afar.

Well Steven, is that was Feministing was created for? I thought it was a place for feminists (assumed to be women) to come together. Men are guests. As a matter of fact, it is stated that we should be here to listen. As such, men's input on "how to improve" will likely not be appreciated.

It would be interesting to know how "we" would be received if our maleness was not obvious, and for that, I created another alias which is receiving no criticism or demands that account be banned. Naturally, I do not mention Hawaii, Japan, or nursing, to give away my identity. How very interesting. "A male" has haters for questioning or criticizing feminism. My others have none.

I treat this place as a place of discourse about feminism.

A forum, if you will.

"If me and all the effete, effeminate, highly sensitive poets, intellectuals, and other assorted sprightly elves got together to discuss our common lot it wouldn't be in terms of sexism or feminism, it would be something else"

I thank feminism for me realizing that men are directly affected by sexism.

"Also I have to object to this white male privilege thing, if you could walk in my shoes you'd know that in some places being a white male is much more problematic that not being so, I know some people will never believe that but I'm sorry to say it's the truth. And it's not like I once had privilege but it was taken away, I NEVER had privilege and neither did my ancestors, but now I'm being told that for all the past sins of people who sort of looked like me I must pay the price."

I'd need to know what you mean when you and your ancestors never had privilege. Still, would you care to trade lives with those of inner city blacks or slaves, for example? I knew an LA man with a Master's degree who had to be prepared to face death simply for walking out the door with a nice jacket or shoes. Would you like to give up your life as an American to be a Central African, Iraqi, or North Korean? Would you like to live your life as a woman? An inner city black woman? A woman under the Taliban? Even as a physically underdeveloped, low income Asian male who's been unemployed a total of six years post university with no retirement (no I do not collect government benefits, I live off my savings), and no home of my own; with children I do not well understand, and a wife with a list of conditions including progressive blindness, cardiac arrhythmia and sexual trauma, I am damned happy to be who I am, and consider my life a privilege, because I do not live the lives of some other billions of humans on the planet who are not fortunate enough to live like middle class college educated Americans.

There are places that being identified as American (or white) will mark you for harassment, assault, robbery, kidnapping or death. In my grandmother's home town, they considered it necessary for us American relatives to be escorted at all times. I had an M-16 waved in my face on the bus, and they did not even know I was American. Just today I watched a show portraying Mexico as a place where innocent American or Canadian youths on Spring Break are routinely victimized by professional criminals. It doesn't mean we are not privileged to be Americans.

Great discussion! I think it shows that many self-described feminists are also interested in breaking down restrictive and unhealthy attitudes towards gender for both men and women. I've had the most success in explaining my feminist views to the many men in my life (I have several brothers, work in a traditionally male field, have a lot of male friends, and generally veer towards the sports/working out/outdoorsy recreations) by pointing out that old and tired constructions of femininity and masculinity constrain us ALL uncomfortably.

As feminists, we have a whole series of "waves" behind us which give us a variety of awarenesses and tools for seeing society through the infamous gender lens and taking apart those cultural practices and marketing pressures that are just horrid. As the health/beauty/diet/fitness industry has turned it's laser beam onto men (they are pitched more "products", shown more pictures of jacked guys with 6-packs, have their appearance critiqued more often, not to mention the Viagra and hair loss and whatever other stuff they are supposed to buy once their anxiety has been provoked), we can show them how to take these things apart, and see them for what they really are...because we've been doing it a lot longer than they have and we can show them how to resist/defuse the destructive messages of masculinity. Tell your buddies that women appreciate male beauty in many forms, tell them that their emotions and their compassion make them more attractive, not less of a man, etc. and gradually slip in the equality for everyone.

Most men don't realize that they have this masculinity myth hanging over them and weighing them down, but once they can see and name the problem, they can resist it and also see how this sort of liberation for all extends to other groups.

Incidentally, there is a whole area of psychology research on how traditional gender roles hurt men, it's called Gender Role Conflict and was pioneering by a male researcher (and enlightened before his time feminist!) at UConn. It's interesting stuff to read: http://web.uconn.edu/joneil/Definition.html

I think feminism hurts men but not exactly in the way OP described. That still sounds like an issue regarding roles and expectations, not discrimination based on gender.

"I'd need to know what you mean when you and your ancestors never had privilege. Still, would you care to trade lives with those of inner city blacks or slaves, for example?"

I don't know exactly how to prove that I've never been privileged simply by birth. I don't think that would be possible. What I mean is that my ancestors were poor and so was I, I may be educated but I'm not exactly privileged or middle class, life is a struggle for me, so it hurts me when people say that I don't have a right to defend my position because my opinion doesn't count because of who I am. That isn't 'privilege denial' that's social retribution. Redress is simply a nice word for revenge, it has nothing to do with justice or fairness or equality. Everything that I and people like me have we earned by our own merits, not because we were given preferential treatment. There hasn't been a film crew documenting my entire life so there's no way I can prove to anybody that I had to struggle in ways that other people around me didn't, so even though you choose not to believe that I do most assuredly tell you that is indeed the truth.

And why should my life always be compared to someone worse off then me? There is ALWAYS going to be someone worse off then somebody else, no matter who you can pick in the whole world, SOMEBODY has it worse. It doesn't make sense to base equality on what you think people deserve based on your version of history.

Did SOME white men have privilege because of birth in the past. Yes.

Did ALL. No, of course not. That my friend is amazingly naive.

Don't make assumptions about what people have been through and what they had to do to make it in life based on jargon and rhetoric and narrow, distorted ideas belched out by liberal professors in elitist universities.

I think feminism hurts men but not exactly in the way OP described.

excuse me, I posted that. I meant sexism hurts men.

I don't think feminism hurts anybody, but I still think humanism is more inclusive.

At some point I may break down and check this site at work, not but yet, given that I only started there about a month ago.

I am aware the poster of the OP did not write it, nor do the editorial staff actually condone it, but I will wait and see what the reaction will be. Tellingly, no readers have yet condemned it, and they are not banned by editorial staff. I believe the same is true of almost 100% of anti-male comments that come up in reaction to OPs about e.g. rape and sexual assault. To me, that means a lot about how tolerant they are of such views. I just so happen to be one of those who does not need to be castrated, and did not need my penis beaten with a heated stone or wooden spoon as a child to prevent rape.

A male, the comments policy here is unambiguous:

All comments with hate speech, personal attacks, or offensive language will be deleted. If we have to delete a total of three comments by any one commenter, that person will be banned.

This is not our site, this is the moderators' site, and it is up to them whether & how to enforce their rules (which is always tricky, esp. with political topics, no matter what one's intentions). But have you sent an e-mail to one of the moderators alerting them of this language? I agree that that kind of language falls against the letter & spirit of the comments policy.

Qi

This topic was originally supposed to be about men not being involved with feminism because they are the victims of sexism and other men would put them down, but it quickly became a debate between men and women about the adversarial stance of feminism towards men.

Feminist should share approval toward men who help the cause, maybe not validation, but I don't recall using the word validation.

I agree. But feminists' focusing mainly on sexism doesn't mean that feminists don't share approval toward men who help the cause. That doesn't mean that positive posts about men who do feminist things are bad-- oh no they're great. I don't read this site every day anymore but I remember a post about men who walked a mile in womens' shoes to protest rape. I loved that one. If you have read Jessica's book she is very positive toward feminists having male allies. But realistically, most of the discussion is going to be about areas where there are problems and how to rectify them. In this sense feminists are merely doing what all social movements that advocate change always do. No movement that advocates change can ever start without identifying and exposing a problem. Sometimes that is half of the task or more.

Your attitude seems to be that indeed women and men are on two opposing teams, am I wrong?

Absolutely. I obviously do not believe that, or else I would not be here.

So should I or should I not be a feminist if I believe in total equality. If you really want me to go do my own thing with other dudes as a humanist and not a feminist then just say so, because I really don't know.

If you really believe in equality, you are already a feminist in one sense, IMO, although you may not identify as one. That is just my view. But as I have already said before, the two are not mutually exclusive. I am a humanist first and feminist second. If I wasn't a humanist I don't see how I could justify being a feminist.

Do feminists really want men involved in feminism? Again a genuine question because I truly do not know.

Some do, some don't. But my experience is that the overwhelming majority do, or at least feel more positively than negatively about it.

I would very greatly appreciate it if someone would answer one simple question...

Are women and men on one team or on two?

In my view, they should be one team. In practice, they usually are one team, but not always.

Because the way this discussion is going it seems to be an opposition between to groups with opposing interests.

I don't see how that is.

I agree with Steven on whatsername's comments. She wants us to screw off. Fine.

That's not what I said at all. I have had, and do have, incredibly awesome conversations and done great work with men around gender. I am more than willing to help men in their endeavours and work with them in deconstructing the gender boundaries constraining them.

But your shows that both you and Steven are in way to defensive of a mind set to have a truly fruitful discourse with feminists.

Hey, as a white woman trying to interact with women of color, I've been there, and felt that. I do understand where you're coming from somewhat.

But you need to get over it. It's not all about you. This is about us. And that's ok.

THAT is what I was saying. We cannot, and should not, do everything for you. We don't have your experiences, how are we supposed to address your issues?

All each of us can do is speak to our experiences in the world. You're getting pissed off at what you perceive as misandry amongst feminists but that is their experience with men. It's an attempt to erase their experiences to demand they don't speak their truth, and I think if you truly understood how us women interact with your privilege, you would realize how truly out of line that is. To demand us to do your work on your issues for you is equally counterproductive, as we have not lived your experiences. I'm happy to support endeavours by men to do that, but it's a yin and yang thing, our movements can and should complement each other and work together but they can't be one singular movement. We're not there yet.

"that is their experience with men.It's an attempt to erase their experiences to demand they don't speak their truth"

The same argument is used to justify misogyny, unfortunately.

For example: "i have never seen a woman capable of military combat" is the attitude and the reason why women are kept out.

That's not the same thing at all Qwerty.

The examples I've seen used consist of women saying "this happened to me" "I've seen this happen" "I've had this said to me".

The men in your example aren't basing their opinion on experience at all. They're basing their opinion on things they haven't seen, and we both know if they bothered to look they would find examples of women perfectly capable of serving.

I'm not saying women are perfect and don't generalize. We do, and that is not a good thing. I do think women should be more careful to say "Some men" instead of just "men". But it's still missing the point entirely to suggest that what those women are speaking to are unimportant just because they aren't expressed in a way pleasing to men.

I see what you're saying whatsername. I was not getting angry at perceived misandry of women who talk about their experiences, or at Dworkin or Solanis. Given a vague sense of where they stood I probably wouldn't identify with their views, but I don't know enough about them to form a definite opinion. I'm certainly not trying to erase their experiences.

Rather I was responding to the example that "a male" brought up where in another thread someone made the blanket accusation that "men are pigs." That was not a statement of that person's experience but one of those unsubstantiated (and wrong) generalizations. Thankfully that kind of comment is extremely rare here.

Even that might be coming out of her experiences with men, but those are the generalizations I was talking about that I'd like to see end. Unfortunately humans in general seem to be very attached to making generalizations.

"The men in your example aren't basing their opinion on experience at all"

I liked your post. But this is a generalization in itself. How do you know that all misogynists don't speak from first-hand experience?

I have read some comment saying that the conversation here became off-topic, but I disagree, with some quotes from the begining post

"Which makes me wonder why there aren't more male feminists[?] Well, the same reason there aren't more feminists in general: sexism. So while female feminists are ugly, fat, man-hating lesbians, male feminists are "effeminate". Just as we gals don't want to be called ugly, most guys don't really want to be called effeminate. Sexism hard at work."

"I want to know what we, as feminists, can do to bring more men to feminism so that we can all work together, men and women (and also those who are transgendered and androgynous) in order to bring 100% of the genders on board."

Regarding the first quote, the conversation was in part refuting Rachel_Setzer's supposition with our own reasoning.

In regards to the second quote, one of the issues was that there is a form of feminism that wants to work on a more holistic approach (combating ALL violence, not limiting to violence on women)and those feminist that does not want the company of men, evidences in some of the quotes cited in this thread by 'A Male' None of the symbolism of the page is about men and women cooperating.

The top banner is two women giving the finger to the world. Not men and women working together. The sentiment represented there is seen through-out the forum.

To Whatsername:
"But your shows that both you and Steven are in way to defensive of a mind set to have a truly fruitful discourse with feminists."

I do count this conversation as a fruitful discouse. One issue that I see over and over again is basically the men on this thread are comming from one set of propositons and assumptions and some of the women are comming from another set of propostions and assumptions.

That leads to us talking past one another.

Also, regarding discourse, I have sent up two entries for discussion, both were killed without any input beyond being called a troll. The conversation here is stilted.

Steven, I have responded to a number of your specific points with engaging comments.

No men or women who have commented in this thread have taken the position that men and women can't work together, although some posters have argued that men and women have different issues and in those areas, we can't do each other's work for one another.

The top banner is two women giving the finger to the patriarchy. It is a play off of a commercial logo that objectifies women. The sentiment expressed by Rachel and all of the posters here (including yourself) have been that men and women can work together in at least some respects.

Qwerty, you gave me a very specific example, and that was what I was speaking to, as I clearly stated in my reply.

-Qi

It is not just this thread, but this forum, that I find myself trying to respond to things that it seems people think I wrote but I did not.

That is why I try to "quote" someone and give credit for reference, it helps focus the response.

When I have been quoted, it helps me address the point raised, but there have been a few times where I have posted: on one subject, and gotten a response that leaves me wondering where that came from.

(Off Topic)
In some ways I think there is a problem with the forum layout. I cannot post my conversation underneath another conversation and have it goes as its own thread. This forum is set up like a blog and not a discussion board, so it organization has different strengths.

http://precinct1080.ning.com/

"Don't make assumptions about what people have been through and what they had to do to make it in life based on jargon and rhetoric and narrow, distorted ideas belched out by liberal professors in elitist universities."

To experience privilege does not mean that one cannot themselves be dirt poor or face extreme hardship. I am aware of the underclass which is white, and are also concentrated in certain regions of the US. But white privilege means for example, you will be less likely than a person of color to be assumed to be a criminal, or gang member, or Muslim, or foreigner, or actual terrorist (and heaven forbid treated treated as one) simply for the color of your skin, regardless of your actual status. It was very enlightening for many of my caucasian colleagues in Japan (and I mean by the hundreds or thousands at a time), to experience for what may be the first time, what it was like to be the outsider, the foreigner, within another culture. Yes, the men experienced white privilege when enamored Japanese women and others fawned over them, but they also were quick to complain about how they were often treated with suspicion by locals or police, or were on the receiving end of outright racism and sometimes hate. Example - if you are white walking down the street in Japan (it is worse for Chinese), you may be approached by police for no reason at all and ordered to produce identification and your visa, and be grilled over your employment or your business in that area. You can be assertive of your rights, but do NOT resist being shaken down by Japanese police, because interesting things have been documented to occur while in custody. This is against their own law, but it happens. Whether you are willing to believe or empathize or not, that is how life often is for people of color (particularly blacks and now those of Muslim or Middle Eastern appearance) and foreigners in the US, and what most white people do not experience in the mainstream 70% caucasian US society. Even if you were arrested and on trial for murder in the US (AND you actually did it or were found guilty), you'd most likely have a better time in the legal system than a black male in the same circumstances.

That was getting off topic, but males experience considerable privilege simply by being born as well, even if one was (correction) 5'2" and 92 lbs. and extremely self-conscious with bad teeth and braces in high school like myself. I hope you will not try to deny male privilege on this site.

A male

Don't white women receive even greater preferential treatment by the U.S. legal system?

This topic was originally supposed to be about men not being involved with feminism because they are the victims of sexism and other men would put them down, but it quickly became a debate between men and women about the adversarial stance of feminism towards men.
I think that the root of these two sub-threads; men not participating in feminism because of sexism, and the adversarial stance of feminism needs to acknowledge that being sexist isn’t just limited to men. It used to be that blacks couldn’t be racist and women couldn’t be sexist but that is just not so.
I had such a difficult time in college and at work because most of the students and co-workers were female. I’m guessing the ladies has spent enough time being yoked by men that they weren’t going to listen to this young pup no matter how much sense he made.
I would not categorize myself as a feminist because many of the feminists seem too locked into their arguments to see another side. Feminism is almost a dogmatic religion. I am baffled that women still earn less than men and I can’t get beyond the audacity of paying people differently based on gender. I was having conversation about wage discrimination with a few ladies and they seemed to be incapable approving of any graduated pay system. Not for years of service, not for production, not for profit delivered. Their solution was a fixed wage per hour. I didn’t matter if some one was able to fill more orders in a shift, chop more cords of wood, type more words, et al. Their solution to wage discrimination would have resulted in the removal in incentives for excellence. Workers would get paid for unit of labor, not production.

LenaD, sorry for taking so long to respond, but I do want to say that I agree with a lot of your post. I would fully support a movement for men that is parallel to feminism, and I think someone like you is the perfect person to get that started since you seem like a very thoughtful individual. Unfortunately, I've been trying to encourage the men I know to do something like that but none of them has taken me up on the offer so far; most just don't seem to recognize the sexism they deal with everyday because it is, as you said, so normal to them. So if you ever do, please let me know.

The one thing I might disagree with: What's irritating is how often feminists simultaneously assert that men should support feminism "because it helps the menz too" and yet make it pretty apparent that men's issues are an afterthought, such as the example Steven mentions. So it's not surprising that men often have trouble seeing how feminism is supposed to help them. I'm not saying feminists are intentionally blowing off men's concerns -- it's just the natural tendency of people to focus on the issues that are most important to them. (A corollary is that it's the people who devote the most time and energy in any movement or group end up setting the agenda, consciously -- or more commonly -- unconsciously.) As I said before, I see it as more of a blindspot for many feminists.

Feminism does help men, by trying to make the feminine "alternative" more acceptable for both men and women. However, as you said, it isn't feminism's focus nor do I think it should be. Let's face it, most feminists are women, and it isn't women's job to free men from sexism, especially when women already deal with so much more sexism on a regular basis. But even if you consider yourself a full-fledged feminist, you can't face my challenges as a woman for me, just as I can't face your challenges as a man for you. What we can do is be supportive of each other, which may mean swallowing our own egos in support of the other for awhile. But again unfortunately, most men don't seem to be willing to do that swallowing; a perfect example is Paul's condescending statements about women above, where he acts as though they should listen to him because he knows what's best for them, even though he may not actually know what's best for them because he hasn't lived their lives. I would never assume that I could be anything but an ally to a male movement akin to feminism for that reason, and yet many men feel it is perfectly acceptable to demand that feminists privilege (there's that word!) their viewpoints above women's in women's lives. So it isn't that we are dismissing men's (very real) issues or even that we have a blindspot; it's that from where we stand, there are more important issues, more immediate fights, and more effective ways to expend our energies. If there truly was a blindspot, we wouldn't even be discussing this because no one would have brought it up and no one would have anything to say about it. The fact that many men in this thread would assume that women/feminists don't think about it is, frankly, insulting and condescending as well. We do talk about the sexism men face and the ways the feminism can help men, but naturally that is on the periphery of many women's lives, so when men complain that we don't, it makes it seem like they want us to focus solely on them, as if men believe that occasionally paying attention to our own concerns rather than theirs takes too much time away from us paying attention to them. Considering society is already so focused on men, that men's lives largely aren't half-hidden and semi-taboo like women's lives are, this makes us all wonder just how much focus we have to put on sexism against men before men will be happy, and this makes us feel like men are trying to hijack feminism for their own purposes. Many men aren't used to being on the periphery like that, just as for instance a white person isn't used to being marginalized by our Anglocentric society, so they don't realize how something that seems like such a tiny, simple request to them can seem to women like men are actually trying to consume everything we've built.

One last thing, that I would say to you and to every man on this thread who has complained about feminism not supporting a fight against sexism for men: women have been expected to defer to men for centuries. Millenia, even. Two hundred years ago, women decided they didn't like this and feminism was born. We didn't have anyone fight for us, we did it ourselves, and even though we were told over and over again that we needed to defer to men in all things, we refused because we knew that we had to think these thoughts and fight these fights for ourselves. We knew that deferring to men would put us right back where we started. So when men come here to tell us how all of us silly little feminists need to devote more of our time to them and their problems, we see not only that they are refusing to empower themselves as we have worked so hard to do, but we get pissed off because feminism wouldn't even need to exist if it weren't for the age-old expectation that women constantly defer to men. If this movement is all about using our own power for ourselves rather than everyone but ourselves, for speaking with our own voices about our own lived experiences rather than always listening to others tell us how they think we live and should live, why would you think we would be delighted to use our power for those who have historically taken advantage of our selflessness without giving anything back without a huge fight and always told us to shut up and listen as if we were stupid about our own lives?

(And I apologize for speaking in such seeming generalizations but I got sick of writing "some" and "many" so please realize that I am by no means talking about EVERY man and EVERY woman. I'm sure some of you will complain that I am still generalizing, or that I am dividing humans unnecessarily, but the fact is that women and men are still assumed to be very different people and until that changes, feminists will have to continue to divide groups along these lines and will continue to sound like we are generalizing when we don't intend to at all.)

Wow, this has been a fascinating thread and I just wanted to hop in and add my voice to the mix.

First, I think that there are many issues that affect men that are not addressed by feminism. While this is unfortunate, I do not think it is feminism's job to be all-inclusive on all issues. Should feminists ignore things outside of their immediate issue area? No. But that does not make it their responsibility to address all concerns. It would not be fair for feminist women to try to define what it is like to be a man or to be masculine in the way that men are expected to be, just as it is not welcomed for men to define a woman's experience. While discussions, questions and information exchanges are more than welcome, it isn't fair for a group to define another group's experiences. That's where feminist men ought to speak up and request allies. Most feminist women would be happy to support a movement that fights gender injustice. As a side note, I don't think that men and women have fundamentally different experiences. I do think that due to socialization, it's hard to understand what the societal roles are for the sex/gender you are not.

The man-bashing that does occur needs to stop. And we, as feminists, need to step up and say something. It is not okay to be sexist (or if you believe that women cannot be sexist due to an underprivileged status, it is not okay to hate an entire group on one attribute that they cannot control) under any circumstance. I don't think it's really that prevalent, but what does happen needs to stop.

Oppressive gender roles need to be dismantled and understood so that we can move forward, away from a limited experience that we are so often forced to experience or coerced into wanting. Men need to let the world know that they want more than what they get. Help others understand so that they can help you.

One of my first experiences with male privilege was when I first crossdressed and suddenly, what I said carried more clout. People heard me more. But unfortunately, I was never manly and was ridiculed, threatened and harassed for being "too femmy". I was actually told I was "bad for [my friend's] health". I learned a lot about male-like experiences through my few years of crossdressing, and I was amazed at my limited ability to express myself. I ignored it and did whatever I wanted, but it meant that I was more ignored than before. I had my "male privilege" threatened by behaving in a feminine manner.

Similarly, my first experience with white privilege was living in Japan and suddenly, I was a dirty foreigner. My opinions were worthless and so was I. The difference was astounding. I had never seen my white privilege before, but now it was gone. And it really helped me see how the deck was stacked in my favor in the U.S. (where I'm from originally).

Based on these two experiences, my conclusion is that privilege is very real. It's just the degree to which it affects your life that really is up for debate. I think that's hard for all of us to acknowlege, as we all want to believe that our achievements were based on our merit and not our race, ethnicity, national identity or gender presentation. But they are. And as painful as that is, we have to look at it and help others see that it still affects people so that we can dismantle it and move forward.

I think men are invaluable as feminists and allies. Feminism helps men. It helps women. And I think that while we, as feminists, don't need to "carve out" a space for men specifically, we need to make sure we don't alienate them and make them feel totally unwelcome. After all, if someone's yelling at you, you don't listen as well. That's not to say feminists always have to be sweet and kind, but I think that we need to exercise tact when appropriate to help people see where we're coming from. :)

Waxghost

I think in allot of ways we are saying the same thing, but are not syncing up or frequencies.

One of the basic propositions of this thread is men should be feminist becuase sexism hurts men to.

The dudes basically say "why would we join a group that really does not care about sexism towards males"

You say "...it isn't feminism's focus nor do I think it should be. Let's face it, most feminists are women, and it isn't women's job to free men from sexism, especially when women already deal with so much more sexism on a regular basis."

So, the idea that men should join a women's movement to help men by helping women who say they won't help men seems like an unrealistic proposition.

The talking point that men should help in the feminist movement's becuase it is correcting historical inequities is an honest one. Saying men should join the movement becuase feminist want to help men as well is disingenuous. The sentiment may be believed by some, but I don't think the majority would take affirmative action to make it happen, and the talking point should be dropped.

...the idea that men should join a women's movement to help men by helping women who say they won't help men seems like an unrealistic proposition.
Here's one guy's take on it: http://nocookiesforme.blogspot.com/2007/10/fair-question-why-am-i-feminist.html (Weather is beautiful, RoymacIII. Wish you were here.)

Saying men should join the movement becuase feminist want to help men as well is disingenuous.
For thoughts about some ways in which feminism has helped and does help men, I urge you to take another look at and reflect on waxghost's July 12, 2008 6:10 PM post. Without fanfare or the benefit of fancy decrees many, many of us actual feminists live in relation to the men in our lives as egalitarians. (I could list some cool examples and benefits, but I am too tired and I think waxghost's discussion of her experiences speaks very well to the point.) If you want some kind of fanfare or fancy decrees, go you. Really. It's up to you guys, though. Again with a nod to waxghost, there's a passle of reasons why men are the best people to be the ones primarily addressing the men's complement to feminism.

I was trying to address was the OP questions on how men are affected by sexism and why aren’t more men feminists. My two main points are that, believe it or not, women can be sexist, and when dealing with feminists on issues like wage discrimination they are dogmatic about their beliefs and will not concede to reason.

waxghost;

I don’t expect to be listened to because I know what best for them, and living their lives is immaterial to the specific points I‘m referencing. I’m not counseling them on home mortgages, childcare, or their relationships with family. I’m talking about task oriented situations like work and school where I expect to be listened to based on my own merits.

The OP specifically asks for instance where sexism harmed men, but it concentrated on male sexism. I am trying to discuss female sexism against men. I argue it occurs, and that I encountered it. If a woman presented a scenario where her years work experience became immaterial because she was placed in a group of men and none of the men included her in the conversation no one would argue that she was discriminated against. I don't think I gave the point it's proper treatment in my earlier post.

Steven, where did I say we wouldn't help men? I said it wasn't our primary focus. You don't have to work on something directly to have an impact on it. Most of the feminists I know would agree that while we focus primarily on women, a lot of the things we do for women can (hopefully) have a positive effect on men too.

Paul, you are still showing your privilege (or what looks like privilege to me) here: "My two main points are that, believe it or not, women can be sexist, and when dealing with feminists on issues like wage discrimination they are dogmatic about their beliefs and will not concede to reason." (Emphasis mine, obviously.) In that last part, you are saying that they won't listen to YOUR logic, and completely dismissing any logic they have of their own. This is a typical example of privilege, where someone assumes that what is logical to him or her is automatically logical to everyone else, when groups that have been mistreated and discriminated against may believe something entirely different is logical because of their experiences being mistreated and discriminated against.

I don't deny that many women are sexist as well, though, so I'm wondering if perhaps I'm missing something in your posts that would make it more clear to me. For instance, what does years of work experience have to do with it?

I welcome feminists freely. As a man it has been hard to do alot of the things I love to do, like shopping or trying new things because the world has been taught men have to behave or act a certain way. My wife has helped me to be who I am and be proud, no I'm not gay like many would like to think. I am fee minded and believe men an women should be able to follow their dreams to do whatever they want to do. Does this make me a feminists? I like to think it makes me a perosn who believes in equal rights for everyone and with the help of my wife we share in a life..sometimes confusing..but one where we both live as one.

waxghost;

You are exemplifying my characterization of feminists as dogmatic. Instead of reading over what I have already said about wage discrimination and weighing in on it based on its merits you fall back on this male privilege dogma. I would prefer an analysis of my argument rather than have it dismissed without any treatment at all. We could start a new post on it.

I support equal pay for equal work, I support reproductive rights; contraceptives, plan B. I would never call my self a feminist however.

waxghost,

I argue that many posters on this site, including the main authors, exemplify the same characteristics that you associate with "male privilege." I've tried to point that out before too, but my posts were never approved. It's interesting that one of the best discussions I've seen on this site have been in one of the community posts where the comments don't wait for approval. I've said before that the authors of this web site haven't seemed to invest much time into understanding why a man might disagree with their point of view. They instead come across as waiting for "enlightened" men to catch up to their elitism.

Lol, well, you're exemplifying my characterization of most men as privileged.

I frankly don't understand what your pay solution was because you didn't explain it very well, but I'm also more interested in why you think your ideas on it are more important and better than anyone else's. I said that I thought I was missing something and asked you to explain a specific aspect that I didn't understand in the hopes that we could clarify what we're talking about, but rather than actually conversing with me, you tell me that I'm being dogmatic. It's pretty funny that you would call me dogmatic and act like I completely dismissed your when you can't seem to even recognize when I am attempting to build a bridge. I've built my side. The rest is up to you.

Matthew, what exactly makes you think that they "haven't seemed to invest much time into understanding why a man might disagree with their point of view"?

You know what else really bothers me about this thread and many of the men who have posted in it? Rachel made a point of writing a post about the sexism that men face so that we could all talk about it and instead this thread has become all about how feminism supposedly doesn't talk about the sexism men face. If you want us to talk about it, talk about it for god's sake!

waxghost:

Rachel did ask for the sexism that we face, but the request was based on the fact she thought men did not call themselves feminist becuase they were scared of being called effeminit.

The conversation has been challenging a basic assumption of the post, which I feel is a valid conversation to have.

in regards to sexism, how about the fact that many of the men here report that there entries are censored without an explanation beyond that we are trolls?

Waxghost
Ive submitted a post for wage discrimination because it seems to be taking away from the OP conversation. I'm still pretty new here and i dont know if i can just drop you an email explaining it so I'm just posting.

Paul, thanks. I will look for it.

Steven, why do you think that is sexism? Are you sure it was actual censorship or was it the site swallowing posts (which I know it loves to do because it's happened to me way too many times).

Also, MANY men come here with the attitude that they have something to teach feminists, rather than hoping to learn from feminists. I frequent another blog that deals with race but I'm white so I only see the tip of the iceberg of the racism that goes on in this country, so most of what I do there is reading and asking questions, rather than assuming I know what people of color have to deal with and telling them how they need to feel, think, and act. I occasionally might feel mistreated by people there, but compared to what they have had to face at the hands of many other white people, it's nothing and I understand that it isn't personal because I do my best to treat everyone with respect. Yet most men who come here take everything personally, never bothering to differentiate between the men who DO deserve our scorn and (I would like to believe) themselves, men who are at least interested in equality even if they aren't willing or able to understand how to achieve it. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself before speaking as if you have authority on a subject, why should anyone take what you say seriously? If you can't differentiate between yourself as a man who does his best to treat all women as equals, and the men we often talk about who don't, why should (how can!) we?

And why do you think that you should be able to say whatever you want in a space that is specifically constructed for feminists and women, and specifically constructed for us because we are so often shut out of other (typically "masculine") spaces? If we only get a tiny square out of the whole room, why are we supposed to share that square with you when you have the whole rest of the room to hang out in?

Identifying myself as a feminist can be real weird sometimes. There's always that small bit of inherent embarrassment that male society tells me I should be feeling. The worst is when I hear words that I've come to abhor like "pussy," "bitch," or even "retarded" and "gay" et al.

Like most things, however, the good outways the bad for me. When I make the decision, conjur up the moxy and tell my male or female friends why using "pussy" as an insult towards anyone is just plain ignorant...I feel pretty damned good. I encourage all my feminist counterparts out there to do the same. Take a stance some time. Present your opinion and, damn it, defend it!

By myself and around others who think and believe things similar to me, it's easy to be a human rights advocate, whatever that means. To promote oneself from "advocate" to "activist," in my opinion, is to advertise and defend (to the death) your beliefs in front of all the other people out there. Especially those deadset on maintaining the status quo.

And shit, if anyone has advice for me...please tell me! I very much appreciate a post like this because it makes us feminist dudes feel great about ourselves! But at the same time I realize that, being a guy, what I acutally understand about feminism is minimal. I want to fight for feminism, but men can only do so much. I identify with what waxghost says, I know I only have the tip of the iceberg here. I try my best to learn and grow everyday in human rights, and then I will talk about my experiences, but I always understand that I am but an atom in the wave.

It squicks me out that this olive branch of a thread has been so combative.

i really don't know how it happened myself... I just ended up in the reeds.

peace.

Spencer10, maybe you could give some examples of sexism you have faced as a man and help us get this thread back on track? :)

waxghost, just so you know, you rock.

*blush* Well, I think you rock too. :)

Speaking of sexism, I think the feministing community is much more tame/moderate than that of other feminist sites. And I appreciate that.

sure thing, waxghost.

I guess it's the everyday stuff that really scares me the most. I think everyone on this site recognizes just how powerful language is in all of our lives, and our language is super effed. Almost every word this country uses to put someone down is terribly ignorant. It gets difficult when I'm just trying to hang out with people, close friends or whatever, and all of the sudden I completely shut down towards everyone because I hear some real hilarious joke like "she shouldn't be driving anyway...I mean, she's a woman." Everyone else laughs, I die a little inside, and I don't know how to act around these people now.

Then there's all the gay jokes guys use to put each other down. I grew up in and around theatre, I'm now pursuing it as a career, and this lifestyle comes with wonderful perks like getting to truly befriend some fabulous queer people of every gender whom society, generally, has shunned. So when America tells me to watch a movie like "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" and that it's actually funny...I gets a little sick to my stomach. My male best friend and I are basically attached at the hip, and people often like to comment on it by making the joke that we're gay together. Just to throw it in their faces, we will usually take this opportunity to stare adoringly at each other and converse openly about the love we share.

It's proving difficult to think up specific examples of how sexism affects me. Unfortunately, I live the super-charmed-super-privileged life of a white, straight, middle-class, fairly conventional-looking, able-bodied male...something I'm not exactly proud of but neither am I seriously ashamed of because I suppose I can't really help it. Disadvantage: I don't think I'll ever TRULY understand the various oppressions for which I fight, although I like to believe I have a pretty good sense. Advantage: In a privileged position...people listen to you. Even though I know I'm not the perfect person to listen to, I can hopefully get the point across and start some dialogue. The term "bully pulpit" comes to mind. Hell, gotta start somewhere.

Here was the worst that I can remember: I have fun, obnoxious friends whom I can do crazy stuff with. One bored night at our female friends house we were talked into getting dressed up and made up like women. I was actually excited about it (I'm in theatre and costuming is part of the trade, plus I absolutely revere any type of cross dresser or drag queen). I didn't quite let on to all the rest that I thought the whole experience was an educational blast rather than just something funny to do, but they knew I was having more fun than all of them. Anyway, we decided to go out in our outfits and one of our destinations was a 24-hour restaurant. The host caught sight of us (and probably heard us) coming through the parking lot, and obviously saw three dudes dressed in drag. Before we got to the door, he came out to tell us they were closing soon and he wouldn't allow us in. I nearly bawled. I think that may have been the closest I've ever been to a real experience with sexist oppression.

I hope all this helps!

It's interesting that this lengthy, combative thread has been almost entirely between and among men. It says something, I'm not sure what.

I don't see tension between being a "humanist" and being a "feminist." I consider myself a feminist because I'm a humanist. Humanism is about righting power imbalances.

Rich white men are in charge. I think humanists want to change all three of those words. Until the people who are "in charge" can't be classified by wealth, race, or gender, I'll consider myself a feminist.

D'oh. Sorry. Conclusion was meant to be:

Rich white men are in charge. I think humanists want to change all three of those words. Until the people who are "in charge" can't be classified by wealth, race, or gender, I'll consider myself a progressive; and the "gender" part of that, in an environment where men have more privilege than women, makes me a feminist.

"It's interesting that this lengthy, combative thread has been almost entirely between and among men."

I thought the thread was definatly a debate, but I would not say it was combative.

I have not re-read the whole thing, but it the conversation stayed away from personal attack and I the participants were mostly respectable.

Here's an example of sexism aimed at men that nothing but education for both sexes can do anything about: near everyone is pouncing on the "liquid virgin" ad/product

http://www.feministing.com/archives/009755.html#comments

for its implications about women being "loose." Well how about all the products intended for men who are "small" which are openly and widely advertised without similar uproar from feminists or anyone else (including masculists and MRAs)? If there is no such thing as a "loose" woman (vagina being composed of muscle and all, as one poster wrote), does that mean there is also no such thing as a too small penis? You know what your internal voice is telling you, and I see the comments/alleged jokes about no penises under seven inches on Feministing and elsewhere. Would you really be able to accept a male partner with a "small" penis? As I posted on that thread "even as a joke, I consider those [size comments/jokes] extremely hurtful. I am no minority proportion of US males who falls below average in any physical measure of size. I am an average Asian male, who as typical of others, gets little respect in US society when it comes to matters of physical proportions, or desirability."

A male, I actually did an art project that was (supposed to be) an examination of maleness and all of the "tiny penis" spam I get (you can see pictures of how I displayed it here and here; unfortunately, I still haven't figured out how I could reconstruct it to show on the Internet like I would want it to.) I've asked several men to comment on it but no one has really had anything to say so far. Also, I'm ashamed that any feminist would say that a penis shouldn't be less than 7 inches, and I would hope that the jokes would be more along the lines of "isn't it ridiculous for someone to believe that a penis has to be a certain size to pleasure a woman?", especially since feminists should have a better idea than most how to achieve sexual satisfaction no matter what "limitations" (for lack of a better word) one of the people involved might have.

spencer10, how do you feel about "bromance"?

A male: allow me an understanding nod in the penis department. Believe me, I know it's a tough culture to live in.

waxghost: I'm gonna check out your project, and I'll definitely be dropping some comments. I'm sure it's awesome.

Bromance, huh? Haha, I'm not quite sure I completely understand what the term implies but I think I can guess. If you're asking whether I'm comfortable feeling love and affection towards my male friends, Hell yes I am. I love everyone I can, cock, cunt, both, neither, or anything in between. Does that term describe some type of male camaraderie based on sexist attitudes, sans women? If that's the case...no bromance for me. I guess I need the term defined before I can really articulate anything on the subject.

waxghost, so you are an artist. Nice. From what I see of it, I like the "be proud of your maleness" message.

"especially since feminists should have a better idea than most how to achieve sexual satisfaction no matter what "limitations" (for lack of a better word) one of the people involved might have."

Quite frankly, except for something to hold onto, I fail to see what the average live penis has to offer over the many alternatives - including fingers, tongues, devices, or another woman. Pleasuring a man, on the other hand, is fairly straightforward, as evidenced by product offerings for males - basically friction and more friction.

Spencer10, as I understand it, "bromance" is a very intimate friendship between two men, more intimate than most men will normally admit to. I first heard it in relation to a gay man and a straight man who obviously had a very intense, close friendship but denied it was sexual in any way. Which of course, most people scoffed at, as if two guys can't be that close without having sex with each other (the old "omg, he shows emotions, he must be GAY" bull). But it seemed to me no different than friendships I have had with other women where our connection was very intense but we weren't sexually involved - and of course it was never really questioned because we were female.

Also, thanks for checking out my pictures and leaving a comment. :)

A male, I'm glad that is what came across! That was definitely the message I wanted to send.

I'm not sure if I understand the rest of your comment, though. Are you saying that sex toys work better in general for men than women?

Well, shit! As I was signing on the the site, a commercial for Extenze came on. Don't worry everyone, it works for men of ALL ages! The kicker? I'm watching "The Birdcage" on TV. Damn, I love America.

If that's bromance, there's no denying that stuff can happen. There are as many forms of love as molecules in the universe. As far as sexuality and attraction go, they're pretty connected to love. And since loves knows no gender, sexuality and attraction follow suit. Most men would find it difficult to admit that love, whatever form it takes, if it's with another male. I, myself, would probably be extremely scared to admit any sexual relations I had with another to most of my male friends. I'll tell anyone who listens that I love my male friends, whether they're gay or closet homophobes (although the latter are rarely my friends). If I got sexually close...I don't know, it's hard to say.

Thank you very much for this post.

As a woman, who is VERY much interested in gender issues and the like, I am sometimes almost ashamed to admit myself as a "feminist", simply because the name is so female centric.

Yes, I care deeply about women's rights. I am infuriated daily by the violence committed against women, and the rampant sexisim and objectification present in our society, among other women's issues.

But isn't the point of all of it that the genders should be equal? That BOTH men and women should be treated equally and respectfully, that neither should have to conform to existing gender stereotypes, etc.?

While I agree to the fundamental basics of feminism, and I do believe that women are still currently beneath men, I know that there are several issues pertaining to men as well, and that if we want real EQUALITY, we need to view everyone as human, regardless of gender, and equally deserving of respect.

Perhaps what I basically believe needs a different name? (such as the previously mentioned "humanism")

/\

"egalitarian" sounds pretty snazzy too, if only i could wrap my tongue around it

I have come to realize that nobody can win. Case in point is the argument that when women act assertive and In-Charge that are characterized as bitches. Just like Marta Stewart for example. She is a billionaire and bitch (person ; if she were TRUMP she would be a Business Person). I have the impression that many feminists view Martha’s actions equaling effective CEO-ing, and men think she is a bitch, which is misogynistic. In this website it appears as if a man acts assertive its male privilege. I don’t means to BS anybody. It seems that women feel that if they are assertive in power they will be held to an unequal standard than men. A feminsting.com I waltz into a conversation like I am an authority about what I am talking about. I am accused of male privilege. I am on opiates right now squinting one eye; I Had two wisdom teeth pulled. Thank god for spell checker. I honestly believe that a women who acts with authority is going to be called a bitch and a man acting with authority is going to be called a misogynist. That’s what it boils down to in gender relations. Distrust and misogyny/misandry On this forum I have been accused of male privilege because I think my opinion is important. Its not misandry, I believe my opinion matters because I THINK THAT I am a person, And Persons/people matter. I may be combative in my opinion, but I’m am not going to be hurt if some one disagrees. I am Invigorated. I Live on this stuff. Disagree with me and I have another point of view; Nothing wrong with that.

I'm a heterosexual white man who opened up to feminism about a year ago. I've been married for ten years and am the father of two boys (eight and six). I grew up in the South (Southwest Georgia, to be exact), being exposed to a mixture of redneck-trailer-trash (surprisingly liberal, believe it or not) and rural-Christian-conservative culture, learning in predominately black schools (I can thank them for leaning me to the left due to my anger on behalf of the conquered and grief on behalf of my ancestors), abused by men and encouraged/supported by women. I've always "acted female" (whatever the fsck that means) to at least some extent, meaning I'm more open about my emotions, less aggressive than your average male, and less competitive as well. To this moment, I feel more comfortable around women than I do around men.

I remember being taunted as a "sissy," a "pussy," a "faggot," and other things in the 1980's - 1990's rural-ish South as a child who was, at the very most, passively interested in climbing trees ('fraid of heights), hunting, fishing, fighting, chewing tobacco, womanizing, etc, etc. I got teased for my lack of athletic ability, as well, even down to the way I ran and kicked a ball. I also acted a little "effeminate" when I was younger, which really brought on the ire of many of my mom's boyfriends/husbands, as well as many associates at school. Until recently, I tried really hard to fit into this mold - enter feminism. I began to study feminism (not formally) about a year ago. Notably to those around me, I've begun to make changes. I realized most importantly that I identify with women more than I do men. I've always been leery of men and trusted women more, due to my upbringing and a past of abuse at the hands of men.

The ostensible changes have yet to bring any backlash from my almost exclusively male coworkers, though I have criticized some of their comments (one made a rape joke, because rape is so funny). I think I'm very fortunate because I had already earned their respect and almost sort of a leadership/mentorship position among them (not to be confused with alpha male because I'm not very competitive), plus the fact that they are more liberal and open to new ideas. Of course, who knows what these motherf*ckers say behind my back. If I had been receptive to feminist ideas when I was in the Marine Corps I probably would have received more backlash. I bring the Corps up, anyway, because I don't think there is a more hostile environment for women in this country. Plus, I was a lackluster Marine because I hated competition, which is an omnipresent element in the Corps.

Hope this is a through enough explanation. I hope to learn from y'all as I've learned from y'all in the past. Thanks, folks.

P.S. Quite frankly, I credit feminism for saving my marriage because looking at the world through that lens helped me see a woman's point of view and to truly appreciate what my wife goes through and how strong she is.

My mother continues to consider me effeminate (she does not use the word) for the way I gesture or move my head when I speak. Also for the way I walk, dress, or stand out in public. I am 39, and she continues to evaluate the way I look or carry myself in her presence.

Back at university when I was wondering why I was not attractive to members of the opposite sex (no cracks please), my mother once suddenly blurted out of the blue during a telephone call, "It's ok if you're gay." Thanks, mom. I think. (I'm not saying it's bad to be gay. It's just her assumption I was.) This was during a time a male relative suddenly came out of the closet after a suicide attempt related to his orientation.

"I'm not sure if I understand the rest of your comment, though. Are you saying that sex toys work better in general for men than women?"

No, other than "something to hold onto" like a torso to embrace, or some emotional attachment with the owner, I don't know what a woman sees in the average penis. There are better alternatives.

Just wanted to quickly respond to A male and waxghost about the whole penis thing from a heterosexual woman's perspective. Just wanted to say that the penis itself is something that I enjoy. There are alternatives but the penis is definitely high up there. I don't know why but I enjoy penis's for both their aesthetic quality, the way they feel, as well as their various functional uses. (I could probably go on in more detail but I don't want to be gross, just to say that the penis is more than just a vaginal stimulator to me). I don't know if I'm atypical or anything, but that is the way both I and my best friend (also a heterosexual woman) feel about them.

Of course, that doesn't mean I reduce men to their penises or that a particular size and shape is best. I suppose penises are like vaginas, I don't get why some men and women like them beyond their obvious sexual function, but some people are excited by, and appreciate, vaginas for more then the obvious. And every penis or vagina is unique and part of a unique human being who deserves to be treated like a whole person and not to be made to feel reduced to one of their body parts. Just wanted to weigh in on the matter.

For Every Woman...
by Nancy R. Smith.

For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she knows she is strong;
There is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every woman who is tired of acting dumb;
There is a man who is burdened with the responsibility of ‘knowing everything’.

For every women who is tired of being called an ‘emotional female’;
There is a man who is denied the right to weep and be gentle.

For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes;
There is a man for whom competition is the only way to prove he is masculine.

For every woman who is tired of being a sex object;
There is a man who must worry about his potency.

For every woman who feels ‘tied down’ by her children;
There is a man who is denied the full pleasure of parenthood.

For every woman who is denied meaningful employment and equal pay;
There is a man who must bear the financial responsibility for another human being.

For every woman who was not taught the intricacies of an automobile;
There is a man who was not taught the satisfaction of cooking.

For every woman who takes a step towards her own liberation;
There is a man who finds that the way to freedom has been made a little easier.

and also check out this website...
http://www.lilithgallery.com/feminist/modern/WhitePrivilege-MalePrivilege.html

The original checklist was done by Peggy McIntosh and then the male privilege checklist was done later as a kind of serious parody to the original.

Also... read Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism by Susanne Pharr.

In my experience, converting men who are set in their ways to see the bright, white light of feminism is close to impossible. Add a little republican and conservatism, with a dash of white upper middle-class to the man in question and you are better off trying to convince MCCain to embrace gay marriage. This is because, unfortunately, feminism attacks the privilege that they are so accustom to, and in addition, the only way for them to keep that privilege intact at all times is to be the manliest, meat-eating, chauvinistic man that ever existed. Things that might make them seem, well, GAY, threaten there position at the top of the fucked up gender as prescribed by society food chain. So, What's most important to being a man as determined by our fucked up world? not being gay... What happens to men who embrace themselves in feminism? - They are labeled as gay - What happens when they are labeled as gay? They lose all privilege. What does all this promote? The notion that ignorance is indeed bliss and many men would rather bask in the ignorance than risk feminism... I hope I make sense... I feel like I am WS 141

GOOD LUCK WITH THIS ONE!

Sexism negatively affecting men? Thank goodness someone is finally speaking up about this.

When I was 16, my dad yelled at me every day for not being the kind of son he wanted. He expected me to know a lot about cars, tools, and to basically help him out with typical father-son activity stuff (except for sports and beer, neither of us have ever been into sports or beer). But I was never good at any of those things, and I suppose I was also a slow learner (he was teaching me how to drive, and screaming at me the whole time while doing it), so he basically called me a loser and an idiot who would never amount to anything. I was not much of a man in his view, and it made me feel so worthless. He's never laid a hand on me before, but during that time, he was always so angry and disappointed in me that some nights, I thought he was gonna come into my bedroom and kick my ass or kill me. That was the most depressing year of my youth.

I was definitely more talented and interested in my creative side. My dad never said these qualities were effeminate, but he didn't think I could ever make a living off of writing or drawing, so he always discouraged those pursuits, and he really blew his lid when he found out I was majoring in film in college.

Today we're a lot better. He supports my professional and creative work. Either that or he's just given up on trying to control me.

I find it kinda funny that my dad is such a macho, chauvinistic asshole, but he raised not just me but also my three older sisters who all turned out to be strong, confident, successful women. I love them. I love my dad too, but he's friggin' nuts. My mom is too sometimes.

By the way, we're Chinese, and sexism and gender roles are heavily enforced in families that follow traditional practices.

Paul, it's not the fact that you think your opinion should matter, it's the fact that you think your opinion should matter above the opinions of all of the other people who also have opinions, with no input from them and no acknowledgment of their experiences, beliefs, and opinions. When a man comes to a place like Feministing and tells us what we need to do, how we need to behave, what we need to focus on, etc., he is effectively trying to steamroll over every person who is already here and treating both the people here and feminism as if they are unaware of their own history and selves, which is beyond insulting. Does that make sense (because I really am trying to explain it to you, not just yell at you, I promise)?

Le, I hope your dad is really proud of you for following your dreams in spite of him!

Rachel Setzer said:
“Sexism hurts men too….So, what I want to do is talk about men's sexism against men.”

Rachel you completely failed to mention that women behave sexist against men too. Men are not the only agents of anti-male sexism. Anti-male sexism comes from women too and it “hurts men too”, to use your words. That you fail to put any blame on women for this form of anti-male sexism is very disturbing, and actually pretty sexist, though I don’t suspect you did it consciously. Nonetheless, it is still an anti-male, sexist analysis.

I am jumping into this so late, but I wanted to link these entries from Finally, A Feminism 101 blog because I think they're very appropriate for this conversation:

Aren't feminists just sexists towards men?

What's wrong with saying that things happen to men too?

Now of course, this is a post expressly created for discussing men's issues, so this is a good place for discussing men's issues. But please don't call out women and feminists in general for not making enough/adequate/proper/whatever space for men.

First Premise: Men and women both prescribe to sexism. Both act-out these beliefs. Sexism, the beliefs and behaviors, is a type of co-dependent enabling relationship: master-slave, top-bottom, dominant-submissive, more privileged-less privilege, control- controlled, more power-less power, etc. Sexism cannot exist unless both men and women prescribe to it as culprits/victims. Sexism cannot reduced or eliminate itself unless both men and women renounce it in their minds, hearts, souls, and behaviors. For Example: Many women date, sleep with, procreate with, cohabitate with, or marry MALES. To do so, they must both share and tolerate ISMS, including SEXISM -- share in the sense of both benefit from it, tolerate in the sense are harmed by it. That innocent, value-free, baby male and female will become the teen and adult culprit/victim, whose parents made the choice (planned or not) to bring that potential culprit/victim into a sexist world.

Second Premise: The progressive, open-ended, goal of feminism (inquiry, thought, scholarship, education, values, politics, tactics, strategy, and coalitions) could be Multiculturalism. The latter diverse human condition could be the common progressive, open-ended, goal for all liberation movements – along the multiple identity lines of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, and especially class. Six billion of us (or 300 Americans)share multi-identities, as both oppressors and oppressed:

1. White – vs. Black vs. Hispanic vs. Asian vs. All Others
2. Female – vs. Male and vice versa
3. Heterosexual – vs. Lesbian vs. Gay Male vs. All Others
4. 25– vs. Younger vs. Older
5. $30K gross, X-dollars net after taxes, X-dollars after paying bills/debts – vs. Poorer vs. Richer
6. My Values – Liberal vs. Conservative vs. Moderate vs. Progressive vs. All Others
7. Party – Democrat vs. Republican vs. Independent
8. Sexual/Love – Single vs. Married vs. Cohabitating
9. GOD – Christian vs. Non-Christian vs. Religious vs. Spiritual vs. Atheist vs. Agnostic vs. All Others
10. Ability – Able-Bodied vs. Disabled vs. All Others

For Example: Have 300 million Americans (or 6 billion Humans) fill out a Census with 10 close-ended questions like above -- what is your race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. The answers to all 10 responses will reflect a “multicultural identity”. This is why movements (and their leaders) come up with vague goals and language such as “equality” or “freedom” or "non-discrimination” -- because these concepts represent a desired type of relationship between multiple identities. MLK's I Have A Dream speech was a vague vision, goal, which each multicultural-generation re-interprets into their own contemporary language and objectives (and politics) given their present-day struggles. Just look at how Senator Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and their supporters, givne their multicultural-identities, have re-interpreted, transformed, our status quo conceptions of how we can relate to each other (as individual, groups, a nation, and a species) into a new inclusive, multicultural, global vision of liberation -- symbolized in one vague open-ended word: CHANGE! Both race and gender, along with other identities (and their negative ISM expressions) both helped and hurt these two change leaders.

Third Premise: All anti-discrimination, liberation, movements will adopt (do internalize) the “dark-side” of the very oppression, domination, privilege, exploitation, marginalization, discrimination they experience. The Oppressed will take on the indentity of, become, the Oppressor too. For example: Most if not all 40 million Black Americans will categorically hate or dislike (consciously and unconsciously) most if not all 200 million whites and other X-mllion Non-Whites regardless of their shared identities. Most if not all 151 million Female Americans will categorically hate or dislike (consciously and unconsciously) most if not all 149 million Male Americans regardless of their shared identities. Most if not all X-Number of Heterosexual Americans will categorically hate or dislike (consciously and unconsciously) most if not all X-Number of Homosexual Americans (bi-sexual, lesbian, transgender, etc) regardless of their shared identities. Sorry I cannot state the Census (or world) population stats on these identities. Such would help us to appreciate the scope of our many identities (closet and open). All liberation, self-determination, movements adopt Group-Ism, Group-Think, Identity-Solidarity values, tactics, and strategies. These movements SEEK to identify a combatant, oppressor, a culprit – THE ENEMY IN CONTRAST TO THEMSELVES.

Conclusion: Liberation, self-determination, movements (past and present) are messy, irrational, politically incorrect human conflicts and struggles – not 100% rational, logical, ethical, panacea solutions. These movements will go through a partly rational, logical, ethical, constructive, learning, process. This process will painfully transform both the movement and those it targets -- seek to change. This change will not achieve the ideal goal sought. I will not be a panacea remedy. The end goal achieved will be incremental change -- COMPROMISE! One bench-mark of knowing whether this incremental change is happening, whether win-win-comprise has been achieved, is recognizing, measuring, to what extent 6 billion humans (or 300 million Americans) can relate to each other (as individuals, groups, and nations) like ONE SPECIES – versus COMBATANT IDENTITIES. For Example: As a black, male, heterosexual, 48, $11,052 net disability pay, mixed-valued, registered democrat, single, agnostic, disabled veteran, and all others identities, I no longer wear slavery-chains like my ancestors, interact with all races in ways inconcievable during the early civil rights movements, support gay rights including marriage, support pro-choice, studied sociology, public administration, public policy, including feminimism, and I probably prescribe to many ISMS unconsciously -- for I would argue it is impossible to not internalize them if you live on this planet, in any culture/nation.

Thank you for permitting me to express OneVoice amongst Many. And I apologizie in advance for any fallacies of logic or rhetoric, formal or informal, may have unconsciously used.

Elainenator:

I have gone through some of the Feminist 101 articles, and I just went over the two you sugested. A problem I see with many acedemic sorces of knowlege there are a few shortfallings

Feminism is not a unified movement. The often cited example is discrepancies between 2nd and 3rd wave feminism.

There are also problems with what people say when they think no one is paying attention. Quoting A male quoting someone else:

"God men are pigs!

"At the end of the day men just think about one thing - having sex and dominating women.

"Let’s face it, what have the brutes achieved so far? War, rape, child pornography. All fuelled by there insatiable ego and desire to have intercourse! I almost feel sorry for them."

Those comments make arguements that women want equality, or beleive men and women should be equal as disengenous. It sugest women want to replace Patriarchy with Matriarchy. And if you think that Matriarchy would be better than Patriarchy (instead of equality) then your arguements are sexist.

Also, when other women come and condem the comments against men, we don't completly buy it. The comments look like they are said becuase they should be.

Listen ladies, I'm a 20 year old male feminist. I'm a writer and definitely straight. I am not labeled as gay, to my knowledge, and embrace feminism in every way. About ninety percent of my friends are female, and always have been, they have even made comments like "I'm glad you're a feminist". I go on plenty of dates with women and they appreciate my passion for equality and it really makes for good conversation.

The few male friends I have don't pick on me for being feminist, and if they did it wouldn't change the fact that I'm simply not gay. The way I see it, being called homosexual and actually knowing you're not are two totally different things. I've had a handful of gay friends and sure I get along with them fine, I'm certainly not homophobic at all and frequently speak up on their behalf.

I'd like to hear from other male feminists. I know my goal is to write for a feminist magazine and everyone I tell makes a comment along the lines of "oh, well that's a brave thing to do", well I don't see it so much as "brave" as something I just feel right about.

-Thank you for this post.

sirshanealot,
I love that you are a feminist. Good for you! I am a 20 year old female feminist, I want to be a feminist therapist, and I am definitely a lesbian. But let me ask you one thing, why open your post with such a condescending greeting as "listen ladies?"... Hmmm, doesn't quite fit with your feminist proclamation of self.

Your post bothers me. You act like what others have said in earlier posts isn't valid by using your own story as proof. You say you are not labeled as gay and that you embrace feminism in every way. I am glad for you. I am an uber-feminist as well, only I find it hard to embrace EVERYTHING concerning feminism, since it is such a huge, complex field that has differing views within itself, but I am glad that everything suits you. Cool. In my post earlier, I wrote about how an underlying fear of feminism in men resides in homophobia. This is indeed true as far as I am concerned, but it is not something intricately discussed among the men who it affects, or more bluntly, the men that you will not find posting on a site dedicated to feminism. So, just by being here, you are most likely not the man in question. You are almost an exception to the rule, if there was a rule, in this case. You are most likely friends with feminist women, and the men you are friends with probably share similar ideals. Now, think about stepping away from that bubble of comfort and then see how another group might view you quite possibly as an aberration from the norm. Can you see how a person might have a hard time embracing such beliefs if they felt the beliefs would threaten their acceptance?

In addition, you also say that people comment on how brave you are to be a male, feminist writer... its been done before. But anyways, doesn't that suggest that they feel the homophobic undertones that may be bestowed upon you for having such a career, meaning, you are brave for taking a job that could threaten your "manliness" and sexuality... hmmm, they sense it as well.. something to ponder.

You know what, you're right. I should have chosen my words more carefully. Actually, my mom isn't taking this so well. She doesn't even mention this stuff to most of her friends, she just tells them I'm going to school for journalism. Sure I am, but also for women's studies, and she fails to mention anything about it. I write for a local women's magazine and half the time she just leaves the part about women out.

I'm certainly not saying that others' posts aren't valid and I'm terribly sorry if I made it seem that way. Everyone has an opinion with differing views and I appreciate that a lot.

Sure, maybe I do not prescribe to EVERYTHING about feminism since, like you said, there are conflicting ideas and there are parts I'm simply not involved in.

There have been moments where I feel afraid of being a feminist, afraid of not being accepted that is. I think that maybe men in general secretly want to be feminist but they know they would be picked on or could possibly "threaten their manliness". Its so weird because speaking up and voicing our opinion is something men have done, and will continue to do, but if one man finds the courage to speak up for women I just feel like there would be 20 there to sweep him under the rug.

Wax ghost.

This is discussion thread about sexism affecting men. My First post argues that women can be the source of sexism but at every turn it seems that my perception is challeged; I only feel like a victim of sexsim I'm sexist.

Hmm. Earlier you accused me male privalege; and later "it's the fact that you think your opinion should matter above the opinions of all of the other people who also have opinions, with no input from them and no acknowledgment of their experiences, beliefs, and opinions." [EBO's] I think your really accusing me of being arrogant and narrow minded; which is a different argumenent.

I do listen take in input from people based on their EBO's. Everyone please take a moment and refer to Murphymomma's and Steven's earleir post about a single male in a group of females.

As far back as my first post in this discussion I was refering to work and college in my early twenties being the single male in groups of 3+ females... and not being listened to at all. If I wasn't in agreement the women shut me out. It is still crystal clear in my mind. I had a class with my debate coach, my fourth class with him. I knew how he thought; I call that experince.

I went to whats called a no-traditional college; most of the students were over 30. I was in a group of 3-4 ladies; each of them who had never taken a class before; or who were returing after a decade of work/child care depending on the student. There was a lady who disagreed with me and the other ladies backed her right away. You may say that I was wrong and she was right. But my prof. criticized the hell out of us, and it was almost a bullet by bullet point of everything we had contested over and by majority concensus I had lost the talking points. I feel as if all my EBO's were discounted becasue I was a single male in a group of females, and I got rolled over.

At college and work I would come acorss disagreeaments between guys and girls and I would weigh in by my conscience. But I noticed everytime a woman was asked to weight in she agreed with the other woman. When I began asking about it the attitute was 'girls gotta stick together'. Basing arguments on gender is sexism. No way around it.

Wax ghost: I simply do not see how you could not view the above situations as sexist.

Paul, it could be an issue of miscommunication (you should read You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation) or simply the politics of a group that decides to go with the majority wants, even if it ignores the desires of the minority. I've experienced these same kinds of situations, especially since I mostly hang out with guys; sometimes they are caused by pure sexism but sometimes there are other factors at work.

But I wasn't in those situations, so I can't evaluate them for myself and will take your word for it that the women dismissed you because you were male.

First of all, not every woman or group of women is the same. Just because these women dismissed you solely because you weren't female doesn't mean every woman or group of women is doing the same thing. You expect me to treat you as an individual apart from all the other men in the world but by bringing up this example, you are essentially saying that I am just a woman and just like every other woman in the world. I have had plenty of other experiences trying to explain male privilege to a man, but I'm continuing to discuss it with you because I see a possibility of understanding that I never saw in those other men. Wouldn't you be insulted if I stopped at assuming you were just like them simply because you're male and not immediately understanding what I'm trying to say? Do you see the difference?

Your example also doesn't effect my belief that you have male privilege. Let me give you an example of my own privilege: I'm white and sometimes people may mistreat me because I'm white, but that doesn't mean I don't have white privilege. I will still probably be treated better than a person of color in my exact same position would be because of my pale skin, and I will still not understand a lot of the problems a person of color has to deal with in just living his or her life because of their race since I don't have to face those same issues myself. Race (and race privilege) is largely invisible to me because I'm white, so I defer to people of color when it comes to racial aspects of life, even if it doesn't coincide with my own experiences. This (hopefully) makes them my equal by not privileging my life over theirs, by not assuming that my lack of racial experience is the truth when it isn't the truth for a person of color. It doesn't hurt me to step aside for even a moment because whites and the white viewpoint are already overrepresented in this country, but it would hurt a person of color if I didn't step aside because it would deny them one of the few small chances they might get to share their side of the story. And then we can actually have a conversation about our different viewpoints that takes both into account.

Does this all make sense?

I sense in reading the 115 comments here, that perhaps all 115 of us (including those posting more than once)have expectations that "another" be 100% free of all ISMS or the particular ISM in question -- all forms of sexism, in how we speech and act. This expectation is understandable but unrealistic and a tad bit hypocritical -- a double standard. Why? Imagine if I as an black male expected 200 plus million whites (including bi-racial) to be 100% racist free, and perhaps only as it relates to me and my group: blacks. My having this "ideal-standard of non-discriminatory speech and behavior" as it relates to a particular ISM that I feel impacts my individual and group life the most or a lot will cause me a great deal of psychological pain -- and perhaps dysfunctional behavior in how I related to whites ... such as in a guilty-until-they-prove them self innocent (racism-free) way, or even a "accumulatively bitter" (resentful and cautious) way. In contrast, I could also adopt an "innocent-until-proven-guilt ideal" standard, where I assume all 200 plus million whites (including bi-racial) are non-racist until they say or do something "I" (or another or other blacks) say is "racist". Either extreme IDEAL, if adopt, will shape how I relate to all whites -- as individuals and a group. Add to this complex interaction and perspective whether I am 100% racism free, sexism free, and 100% free of all forms of ISM (conscious and unconscious discriminatory speech and behavior)towards all 300 million Americans -- if not 6 billion other souls on the planet. Now, we can see how complex, challenging, guilt provoking, in-denial, and reactionary one can become ... striving to cope with, address, and unlearn ISMS. Thus, I must strive to achieve some functional, inclusive, balanced way of unlearning my ISMS while empowering others to unlearn theirs -- without coming off too combatant, hostile, negating, reactionary, threatening, unforgiving, redemptive, hypocritical, unrealistic, naive, divisive, segregationist, and all of the other behaviors that pre-empt and prevent myself and others to learn and grow -- evolve in a non-ISM way that mutually benefits us ALL (300 million or 6 billion). As I have suggested in my first post, this messy, party logical, party rational, partly, partly painful, partly ethical learning process is incremental for all of us. For example, SirShanealot's Mother (whom I will assume he loves 100%) may be reinforcing his unconscious sexism and her own internalized sexism: "My mom isn't taking this so well. She does not even mention this stuff to most of her friends, she just tells them I am going to school for journalism. Sure, I am, but also for women's studies, and she fails to mention anything about it. I write for a local women's magazine and half the time she just leaves the part about women out" But I would give "HIM" 100% credit for being open to adopting feminist values, speech, actions that help reduce sexism in himself, others, and our nation -- even if non-measurable. And even though I might suspect his Mother may be reinforcing sexism in some way, she also gets 100% credit for supporting her son in the positive ways she does -- which indirect is a way she helps reduce sexism. This positive and negative, contradictory, nation of our relations with others speaks to every single person I have met, that I still know, and all I meet: We all act-out ISMS (including SEXISM). But we may and do act in ways to unlearn and reduce it. We can do both. Why? Because all 300 million (and 6 billion of us) are walking, talking, thinking, acting multiple-identities, both oppressor and oppressed, living-contradictions. I have hard-core gay right advocate associates (straight, lesbian, bi-sexual) . But each is also BIASED -- acts our their respective discriminatory-values towards each other and other groups: Heterosexual Black females expecting and demanding the black males they interact with to be feminist. But then act-out their own homophobia -- and expect and demand straight black males reinforce and perpetuate it. I, myself, still having aversions to dating, sleeping with, having a relationship with FAT or SKINNY females -- and thus perpetuating the status-quo sexism that feeds anorexia, bulimia, and other eating-disorders afflicting millions of women. Even GOD (if one believes in such – noting I am Agnostic) is not perfect. He, she, or it (the ultimate multiple-identities) is still perfecting 6 billion plus human creations.

Thank you for permitting me to share OneVoice amongst Many.

Thanks for this post. I am struggling myself with this whole topic. I have called myself a mysogynist-feminist for shock value, but I know many of you would have none of that. But I really want some feminist cred. I think I am a feminist...I love women, I respect their capabilities and intelligence, I believe in social, economic, political, moral, and any other dimension of equality for women. I think society, government, men should do all they can to make women's lives better. I fight for women by supporting political causes that serve and protect women (i.e., I am a DEMOCRAT). I show respect for women in their presence. But I am sex and breast obsessed and it is reflected on my blog. Is it possible for a guy who is a creep to also be a feminist?

"But I am sex and breast obsessed and it is reflected on my blog. Is it possible for a guy who is a creep to also be a feminist?"

My analogous, comparable, speculations as a multiple-identity male:

" But I am material and wealth obessed. It is reflected in my daily actions. Thus, is it possible for me and similar persons who are material and wealth driven (in addition to having other obsessions) to be a humanist?"

My Answer -- Yes, 6 billion of us are the good, the bad, and the ugly. Is this corny, yes. But nonetheless it is reflective of our complexity: past, present, and open-ended future:)

P.S. I have met my share of multi-identity women, while working and living in different nations, whose values, desires, and behavior could be interpreted as passionate (or obessed) with having excessive sex with many male body parts (especially if young, hard-body, affluent, and white). They also were multiculturalist, which includes being feminist, humanist, progressive, etc.

Thank you for permitting me to share OneVoice amongst Many.

OneVoice, I totally agree. It's not about being completely free of sexism/racism/etc. in the first place. It is about being open to realizing the ways in which you yourself (I myself) perform and reinforce those (as you put it) ISMS.

There are also times that people are just too exhausted with the various piles of crap that life throws at us to give other people the benefit of the doubt and I don't think anyone should be yelled at for that either. We just need more understanding all around, eh?

So CNBC Sucks, I wouldn't necessarily condemn you for being "sex and breast obsessed", but I would hope that you would recognize that an environment like that can be VERY uncomfortable for women and make us feel like you don't actually respect us for anything other than our bodies. I would hope that you would do your best to discover WHY you are sex and breast obsessed, to recognize that it probably makes you dismissive or seem to be dismissive of women, and that you would strive to change that and make your blog a more comfortable place for women.

I have lots of things I'm mad about that men do to me, and that have been done to me with the male role I was raised in. But does it really have to be that? This is a stump speech for me almost, but, it's always been true. My grandmother was valedictorian of her high school, first woman ever to do that. She went out got married a year later, was discontent in her marriage, so they gave her shock treatment, over and over. A very nervous housewife when I knew her, had an early stroke. My aunt married a fundamentalist, she was discontent with her marriage, they gave her shock treatment--whacky Aunt Milla. Mom started having freakouts when I was growing up. She went to school, got a job at the university, some catholic professor handed her betty friedan. She retired Vice President. Isn't that enough? This is my family, it's who I am. Half my family was murdered by the patriarchy, and feminism saved my mom. My dad started cooking when my mom went back to school--he's a really good cook. We go to the mountains and look at butterflies together.

I've lived on the fucking earth, apparently unlike these bitter divorcee men's rights guys. I've seen men act embarassingly emotional fragile while believing themselves superior, I've seen them think they're rational while they act like kids, while they can't emote. I've seen them terrified of being fags, of course, and bullying to keep from bottoming, even the nelliest of men. My workplaces pretty much have men in the high positions and women in the low positions, and always have. I know some pretty difficult women, and yet somehow the majority of the really pitiful problem people in life always seem to be these guys.

I guess I could talk about things I haven't gotten because of the fucked up gender system, but it's somehow not the point. Feminism has been a place for me to put my rage, for me to feel like there's a way for things to be different. I read Valerie Solanis when I'm having a bad day. She was probably a little crazy but she's preserved my sanity.

I don't know, how would you get me more involved as a feminist? One can be pretty pomo on most identity based movements--my best political contributions ever are on trans issues and I'm not tranny... but the one limit is you can't come in and boss everyone around and do the movement yourself if you're not something (too bad, goddess knows I could make a list of things to do). So I need women to ask me for help (and I've been a public figure who should have been asked more). I need feminism not to feel like a club for women who went to Brown, but like a face to face proselytizing movement that fights for everyone's soul, I just need a place to fight.

"Feminism has been a place for me to put my rage, for me to feel like there's a way for things to be different ... I need feminism not to feel like a club for women who went to Brown, but like a face to face proselytizing movement that fights for everyone's soul, I just need a place to fight."

Profound! Deep! Praxis! Authentic! Powerful!

Thank you FloweryLeatherBoy for permitting me to learn and grow from your Voice, in a way that transforms me, though this welcome change in me will continue to remain a life long process.

My Kudos!

I don't understand the whole point.

Men afraid of pursuing their dreams because they don't want to be seen as "gay".

Who cares what someone calls you or thinks of you? Why would any of that stop you from "pursuing your dream"?

In order to work toward equality, we have to work together.

What kind of equality are we talking about here? What rights does anyone lack due to their gender or their sexuality?

Are we rather talking about what other people think of you? Isn't that wayyyy over-rated?

I'm confused as to why a lot of the argument I'm seeing is basically that feminsits need to care more about the issues of men if they want men on their side. They need to have examples of sexism against men as much as examples of sexism against women.

I am involved in LGBTQ rights, and I'm straight. I'm a huge proponent of fat acceptance, and I am thin. I care about the plight of my fellow human beings, and I care about my fellow human beings being oppressed. It doesn't have to be about me. I don't expect LGBTQ groups to take up the issues of straight people. I don't expect fat activists to address other body issues.

So why would it be so important for feminism to be more inclusive of men's issues? Is it so far fetched to think a man might work toward women's equality because he cares about the plight of fellow human beings?

Doesn't sexism affect men because it affects people they love as well?

Brrrk--not many people are able to get passed their fears of how others will perceive them. And of course what other people think of you affects you in concrete ways. Not getting job promotions--applicable to women and men who aren't perceived as conforming to male gender norms. Being treated differently in myriad ways.

PhantomLlama;

I think that people would agree that they are male feminists. Taking that as a granted (like a geometry proof) I would like to suppose the following (based on my readingshere): feminism extols two values freedom and equality, espicilly as it relates to the genders. Taking these as givins; they are not male and female feminist issues as whatsername seemed to imply:

Feminist men should get together and work on their own issues, that's not my job. I know that doesn't sound very nice, but seriously guys, we're doing it with a lot more standing in our ways.
There exist Feminist issues that need to be addressed. Pay gaps, military sevice, paternity leave, access to dependend monies. Some of these are male feminist issue, some of them are female feminist issues. I think that this the rebellion from the men on this tread results in a rejection of this principal; "ook at what they have- I want the same thing."

Wax Ghost; I am willing to admit that male privalege exists. Decicions may be based in my favor becasue I am male. But I also that female privalege exists. I believe that in some instances the elderly get breaks not afford to the young. I beleive that all kinds of privalege exists. What do you think about female privalege? As feminist men try to gain the same privalges in some sectors that females have how do you feel?

Just about every sort of group gets some sort of privilege in modern society. The problem that arises is that one group decides that they aren't happy with their privileges, and wants another group's. Well, if Group A gets all of their original privileges, plus Group B's privileges, what does Group B get? And where does that leave Group C?

Get what I'm saying?

Hmmmmmm ...

Yes, I'm Still A Guy, I think I get what you're saying. Here's what I get, though my understanding of what you're suggesting or claiming could be incorrect, Please accept my apology in advance if I'm incorrect:

Premise 1:

X-Number of 300 million (or 6.5 billion) humans have formed groups -- cultural memberships.

Premise 2:

Each and All of these Groups have X-Number and X-Types of Privileges.

Premise 3:

A Problem arises when any X-number and X-Types of of these Groups seeks to increase their Privilege by expecting or demanding other X-number and X-Types of Groups to give up their X-Number and X-Types of Privilege.

Conclusion:

X-Number and X-Types of Groups ought to be (or should be) satisfied, content, or happy with the existing X-Number and X-Type privileges they have -- not seek, expect, or demand to increase them at the expense (loss) of other Groups.

Have I understood your argument (all of its premises and conclusions) correctly Sir? If, yes, are you open to applying your abstract argument to the real-word, perhaps making the context America, for the period 1629 to 2008, as it relates to X-Number and X-Types of Heterosexual White Males and X-Number and X-Types of Heterosexual White Females? If no, could you make explict all your premises and conclusions, but again its application in the real world and for what period?

Thank you Sir for permitting me to inquire further.

I would make such a real-world argument, if I were able to find anything that men are privileged to do in dominance of women in modern America. There are no career paths that are not open to women, and there are no civil liberties that are unavailable to women.

I'm sure that, from a certain point of view, there is a lack of equality between the genders. While I respect that view, from another view, there is a form of equality, or perhaps even a bias in favor of women in certain areas. And that is where my argument comes in to play.

A woman can choose to have an abortion. The father has no say in this matter. However, if the father wants the child, he has no voice. If he gets the woman pregnant, and she chooses to keep the child, he can have no choice but to support the child financially, under penalty of law (and wage garnishment). So that is one area in which women have the advantage - the continuation of the species.

In a domestic violence incident, it will almost invariably be the man who is taken into custody by the police - even if the woman was the perpetrator. Yes, I do realize that the majority of injuries in DV cases are inflicted on women by men. Statistically, however, women are just as violent as men within the home. They just cause far, far fewer permanent and disfiguring injuries.

A woman can be an outspoken feminist and not be labeled a misandrist. (I actually have a great deal of respect for many, many feminist writers.) A man who is an outspoken advocate of men's rights within the home and family is more likely to be labeled as a misogynist, or a member of the patriarchy trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant. (At the same time, there are many MRA writers whom I believe to be full of crap.)

So, inasmuch as men have no real control over reproductive rights and are more likely to have their lives destroyed by allegations of domestic abuse, women have huge advantages at home, under the rule of law. I would move into other areas of life, but that would necessitate a whole article of its own.

This is, however, largely a matter of perspective, and I wholeheartedly respect your right to disagree with me.

Paul, I'm not sure what you mean by "female privilege". Can you give me an example or two?

Also, I looked some of this stuff up and have to say that I agree with the arguments presented on this page that challenge the idea that women have privilege. To give you an example from my own life, people are constantly trying to lift heavy things for me because I'm female. I've even had people at work, where it was my job, offer (or even just intrude and do it) to lift something heavy for me. This may sound like a privilege to you, but it is actually an example of how these people don't think I can or should lift anything heavy solely because I'm female and supposedly weak. It's based on the assumption that I'm incapable, while every male privilege I can think of is based on the idea that men are not only capable but more capable than women. So I wouldn't consider that privilege, I would consider it the corresponding social balance point of male privilege.

im still a guy, while ostensibly women are not barred from any occupation or career path, in real life, we often are. We often encounter all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle sexism that effectively ends up barring our way. I'm sure you'll say that that shouldn't stop us but it isn't as simple as one individual's actions. I remember going to an interview in the late '90s where the interviewer decided he'd rather date me than hire me.... What could I have done about that? There was no way for me to convince him to hire me because he had already decided that my femaleness was more important than my need for a job. Which means that interview was wasted and the job opportunity closed to me indefinitely. This is a somewhat extreme example and I don't think this happens nearly as much as it did, say, 30 years ago but I think it's fairly representative of the kinds of obstacles women still have in the work world.

I'm not sure how women having the right to keep or terminate a pregnancy at will is privilege. If there were some other way for children to be born without an unwilling mother having to bear it (and certain other ethical considerations, of course), I'm sure feminists would be all for it. And feminists would like to see the need for dependence on the baby's father cease; that's why we tend to advocate for better wages for women, accessible and decent daycare for all women, etc. - those are all attempts to make mothers self-sufficient if need be.

Domestic violence is definitely a difficult case, one which is not as clear-cut as you or most other people I've seen talk about it imply. As a child of domestic violence myself, I know very well how complicated the issue is. It can be exceptionally difficult to tell who was the actual abuser and who was just defending him/herself. Abusers like to claim that they are the ones being abused and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, while the victim is often so beat down (physically and emotionally) that s/he can't even ask for help. There are ways to tell the difference between the abuser and the abused that I wish more cops knew, but at the same time many cops are abusers themselves, so I would actually be frightened to have that knowledge in some of their hands. Either way, I've heard that most police forces take both individuals. Also, your statement that "[Women] just cause far, far fewer permanent and disfiguring injuries" seems silly to me. Even if it is true that women and men abuse at the same rates, the fact that men's abuse of women is far more likely to be fatal is pretty significant, don't you think? If we have to prioritize, which is a pretty awful thing in itself but unfortunately necessary since domestic violence in general in this country is not taken seriously, shouldn't we make sure first that no one dies? The only other conclusion one can come to is that women's lives are less important than men's mental health....

Every feminist I know, both famous and not, is instantly labeled a misandrist if she speaks up about feminism. If MRA's were more willing on the whole to actually examine a lot of their own basica assumptions about the sexes, and acknowledged misogyny and sexism against women, they would be a lot less likely to be labeled misogynists. As it is, "men's rights activism" seems to be entirely reactionary against feminism and against the gains that women have made thanks to feminism. They also refuse to recognize the multitude of ways that feminism's efforts have simultaneously benefited men. So what else are we supposed to think?

It's interesting - I don't really disagree with anything you've said, wax_ghost. But, like I said, this is largely a matter of perspective and opinion.

The behavior of MRAs in the modern era is somewhat similar to the behavior of feminists in the 1960s and 1970s - "these are our rights, we're entitled to them, and you can't take them away from us." Really, I believe that what we're seeing now is the same thing that happened back then, only the genders have reversed.

Thank you I'm Still A Guy for sharing. Please let me know whether I understand your perspective and stats correctly:

1. 304 million American men and women have achieve economic, political, gender, and cultural equality. So, if we tallied up every single job in American, look at which gender occupied those positions, then we should see 50% are male and 50% are female, more or less -- the only exception being the U.S. President (occupied by 43 elite white males from 1789 todate. However, if we don't come with a statistical 50/50%, then the reasons is not residual historical sexism or present-day sexism, it is because X-number (percent) of 150 million women have chose not to exercise their -- equal opportunity employment and civil liberties, but to economically, politically, gender, culturally, and domestic dependent on male-breadwinners (a husband, boyfriend, single-male, or patriarch-state)?

2. There do exist some gender biases but mostly in favor of women: such as who controls the reproductive rights of women (men 100%, women 100%, or men/women 50/50% -- noting no male has or will ever carry a child in a womb and go through up to 9-months of birthing pain, or end up primarily raising the child (especially as a single parent).

3. There exist equal opportunity domestic abuse. Women commit 50% of domestic abuse and men commit 50% of domestic abuse. But the courts and police treat male domestic abusers more harshly or in a biased way -- because X-number (percent) of women ... "just cause far, far fewer permanent and disfiguring injuries."

I agree the above opinions (yours and mine)are a matter of self-referential and self-serving perspectives. I also respect and affirm our right to agree or disagree. Moreover, I'm Still A Guy, I understand (I think) your perspective. I even have my own "radical" male perspective, one I'm sure X-Number of American women would object to, and perhaps deem quite sexist.

For example: In my humble opinion, there's a fundamental reason why the miltary (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines) are resistant to permit women (and gays) to serve, especially in the highest command positions (generals, chief of staff, etc) ... for the same reason why white colonial slave masters prohibited black Africans from learning how to read and white ... KNOWLEGE IS POWER ... especially if and when it can translate into the intellectual, physical, political, and technological capacity and skills to FIGHT ... versus capitulate in real-life Lysistrata fashion. Can you imagine, conceptualize, 154 million American women uniting in sophisticated solidarity (regardless of race, class, age, etc) and actually using their GOD-LIKE procreation power to compel 150 million American men to create an American culture that 100% values, respects, and affirms women and men, comparably? I cannot! 154 million American women, LOVE accommodating 150 million men -- as long as we think and act like Benevolent Patriarchs .... give them the American Dream: monogamy, marriage, house and picket fence, be status job breadwinners (and permit them optional jobs), 2.5 kids, etc -- permit them to be a Queen, or Princes, or Cinderella and we act-out our fairy-tale roles of being the benevolent patriarch King, Prince, or Affluent-Power-Man. 154 mililon men overall TOLERATE FEMINISM or all forms/voices of FEMALE EQUALITY POLITICS -- make no mistake about this. This is why MEN dictate all human reality -- with some "permitted" input from women. This is why PATRIARCHY RULES world wide, not just in America. This is why MEN (be they on the U.S. Supreme Court, in Congress, or the one that individual female dates, procreates with, cohabitates with, or marries) gives WOMEN THE ALLUSIONS OF EQUALITY. Men have been dictating what ALL WOMEN (and ALL MEN) what they must think, how they must think and act-out that thinking -- those values and ideology. And women OBEY -- especially republican, conservative, religious, and low-income and poor women ... you Anne Coulters, Phyllis Schafley,s etc. Every American male (gay, straight, bi-sexual, other) is taught to believe in, prescribe to, the Patriachy ... not Feminism or Male/Male Equality. Simiarly, all females are socialized to prescribe to such -- and then in turn teach it to the babies and teens they raise ... and hence, patriarchy rules, perpetuate itself, become an immortal way of life. Until 154 million women (or 3.5 billion females) fully grasp and use their god-like-power (procreation) to CONTROL men, whether in the form of MATRIACHY or some version if it, MEN will always (and I mean always) dominate via PATRIACHY. EQUALITY is a myth -- an allusion. There has been, presently is, and probably will always be AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP IN-CHARGE -- CALLING THE SHOTS 51% to the other 49%, whether in paternalistic or materialist benevolent fashion or dictator fashion! Human beings cannot conceptualize, envision, imagine any other type of power-struggle, multiple-identity, relations. Woe v Wage will eventually be over-tuned ... I'm 100% certain powerful elite men (supported by a majority of false-consciousness women and reactionary-sexist-males in our nation) will permit this to happen before I die (in another 52 years). Men, especially powerful elite males, fully understand the power of procreation: because our male lives, progeny, existence, immortality is dependent on US owing/controlling that ominipotent-biological-female-power ... via religion, conservative values, right wing politics, state-rights-laws, Congress, the medical/health industries, the pro-life movements, and the U.S. Supreme Court:) Tell a women you love her, you worship her, you want her to have your babies, you want a family, you'll support her, she is special compared to all other women on the planet, the most beautiful, you'll be monogamous (but CHEAT), etc, and she'll capitulate her mind, body, and soul to male patriarchy and her reproductive rights (and sell out 304 million of her sisters or 3.5 billion) ... even if for centuries and present-day most if not all men continue to breach our Knight-In-Shining-Armor or Prince-Charming macho, manly, income provider, protector, role:) Hell, even Senator Obama reminded us black males that we're shirking our patriarchy-roles by permitting millions of black females to be single and raising kids alone -- hence our "re-doctrination" into prescribing to the Black-Patriachy-Model. For some biological, god-given-reasons I guess, women and babies will become pathological, dysfunctional, human beings (or exstinct) without males assuming us heterosexual males assuming our rightful place (throne) in the only functional family structure/unit -- the nucleu heterosexual, monogamous, male/female family:) If there are milions of single black females with kids, then can you imagine how many millions of white females (and other race females) there are who are single parents -- waiting to be rescued by their Prince Charming Husbands:) As for gays and lesbians, I feel sorry for them. They want to emulate heterosexuals -- copy the heterosexual models, expand patriachy models to homosexuality ... aka butch/fem and so forth. As a male, I am both baffled and in awe of how indispensable my masculinity/maleness (and heterosexuality) is to the human species (lol). And we wonder why MEN think and act like GODs and WOMEN (and GAYS) tend to think and act like FEMININE-SHEEP.

Again, thank you I'm A Guy for permitting me to share "my perspective" and for permitting us (two males) the mutual respect to agree and disagree. I also apologize in advance to any females on this site who may find themself offended by my male perspectives of "how I think the world is" versus "how we may think the world should be". But as I'm A Guy said: Our opinions, beliefs, and individual and group realities as 304 million Americans (or 6.5 billion souls) are merely diverse, common, or different perspectives":)

To OneVoice:

1. Frankly, yes.

2. I'm not sure how to respond to this point.

3. Yes. If a woman starts the fight, and the police arrive to find her bloodied and the man not so, who do you suppose is hauled away?

I do not believe that men "allow" women power or responsibility in the world. It is up to each individual to reach out and grab hold of what they want, regardless of race, religion or sex. To say that you cannot accomplish something because your gender or race is an "obstacle" is to block your own pathway to accomplishment.

To I'm Still A Guy

1. You're perspective is historically and present-day uninformed or misinformed. There exist no 50/50% job/income parity (but 20/80%)between 154 million women and 150 million males, especially for elite power positions. Moreover, the primary reasons are ISMS, especially sexism and racism, not freedom of individual choice or abdication of it.

2. As long as women carry children in their womb up to 9-months (whereas men do not) then each individual woman and all women should have 100% control over their bodies and reproductive choices -- be it to abort or not abort.

3. If the woman is bloodied and the female is not then such prima facie evidence suggest the cops should ask questions, seek to determine who initiated/started the fight and perhaps arrest that person -- not automatically assume the male is stronger and the culprit and the woman is weaker and the victime. Moreover, if cops (male and female) are sexist in making these assuptions about who is culprit/victim, women should not be scape-goated or blame ... but the patriarchy culture that teaches us to adopt such values.

4. I agree, men don't "permit" women "power. Women tend to abdicate, capitulate, this power to men in exchange for patriarchy benefits -- and do such because of their historical and present-day socialization, false-consciousness, etc. I also agree any ISM (sexism, racism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, etc) are individual and group obstacles -- but still individuals and groups should not permit these behaviorial and system barriers keep them from seeking self-determination. This means not pretending ISMS don't exist or they aren't obstacles. This means challenging individuals, groups, institutions, laws, beliefs/values, and cultural practices that are discriminatory. This is how black Africans emancipated themselves from white colonial oppression ... as was the case for white ethnic minorities (Jews, Irish, Italians, etc) who experienced inter-ethnic-discrimination ... as was the case for the labor and women movements and is the case for the gay rights movement.

Thanks you, again, I'm Still A Guy for permitting us to share perspectives and dialogue.

Wax Ghost;

I have had complete opposite experience with women and lifting at work. I work retail, have for the last 8 years. Time and time again I have seen groups of women stand around something that needed to be lifted while they wait for a man. Often, its me. It happened my last day at work, even. Little 110lbs guys are asked to lift heavy stuff by women who may be stronger than them; they certainly outweigh them.

I’m currently in a relationship, but I remember the delicate dance of eye glances when the bill arrives at dinners and other early dates. It is expected that men pay for women’s affection. I understand the fundamental ‘asker pays rule’, but in my experience women will initiate dates then still expect me to pay. These courtships don’t last long. I’ve had women co-workers brag about stringing several guys along, getting movies, dinner, booze while they have no intention of dating them. Its not respectful. One of the first things I’ve learned is not to buy women drinks at clubs. I’ve chatted women up, who ask me to buy them drink then they abruptly leave, or they boyfriends arrive. Young guys, let me mentor you, if your out there. Never buy a lady drinks if you’ve just met her, at the worst you‘ll take her home and sex her up and then you‘ll have charges filled against you because she was saying no “in her head.” (that one wasn’t me). At best she’ll leave after drinking a $7 red-headed slut (that was on 2nd Ave in Nashville). If you buy a pitcher of beer at a bar, then try and make it to your crew you will have to elbow aside women asking you for free beer (the marina, outside Lejeune).

And for reasons I can’t comprehend women things its totally fine to hit men. Women whack men in the arm, slap their faces, hands, its all game. I have never seen a man actually hit a woman. I’ve seen women with bruised faces around, but I’ve never seen a man hit a women, personally. But women hitting men is a different deal. I go bars and see women slapping men, women slapping women, drunken brawls outside of the club before the rest of her friends pour her in the cab. I’ve had men hit me, and it’s go time. But I know there is no go time if a women hits me, even if I crack her one back with equal force I’m likely to either get my ass kicked or sent to jail.

Two periods ago my girlfriend tried Midol for the first time; apparently it never worked for the women in her family so she had never tried it before; once she did she felt ‘fabulous’. Last period, Paul is kicking around the house, notices bloody toilet paper in the crapper, and my girlfriend is pissed off with me, but wants to cuddle, is achy and tired, complaining about being bloated; basically a walking before commercial waiting for medication (and hugs). I suggest she have a Midol; it worked wonders last month. What resulted was a huge hissy fit with remotes and fridge magnets thrown at me and me being beaten about the head and shoulders with an oven mitt. In no world I live in would I take an oven mitt and hit my girlfriend with it. I brought it up to the women at work and they all laughed like it was my fault. She hurts her knee, I can tell her to use ice and ibuprofen, but if she is cramping and tired I can’t suggest Midol without risking violence? Every women I’ve mentioned it to sanctioned the violence and said I deserved it. See above posts.
In this country men have to apply for the draft in order to receive monies and scholarships. Women have no such obligation. To me being a citizen is not just what benefits you receive, but the duties and obligations that are placed on you. The draft is not going away. But instead of advocating equal responsibility and citizenship the consensus among women seems to be, eh.

And most controversially lets look at childbirth. I have read interesting articles about women getting semen from men in order to get pregnant. One instance was a nurse was consoling a guy who lost his mother at the hospital; she gave him a blowjob with a condom and used the semen to get pregnant. Other cases involve women sleeping with drunk men, which would be called rape if a man did it, and getting pregnant. After all this the women file and get child support. The courts have decided that it is in the best interest of the child to have the father pay support, even if it was rape. In the end even neo-cons would allow a woman an abortion in the case of rape or incest, but a guy has to pay for 18 years if he is raped.

Further on abortion. I was raised to take responsibility for my actions. My mother taught me that if I ever got a woman pregnant I was to provide for my children, if we got married, or not. I was raised to be accountable. My mother would disown me if I abandoned my child. I can’t wrap my mind around feminist who support abortion. I’m not talking about rape, incest, condoms, plan B, medical conditions that affect the life of parent, or unborn. I’m discussing people who decide after they have consensual sex to abort the pregnancy.

I own a hand gun. I buy beer. I drive a car. I have sex. I’ve never shot anybody. I’ve never driven drunk and gotten into an accident. I’ve never gotten a woman pregnant. If you drink and drive your license if revoked, if you commit a crime with a gun you loose the right to bear arms. What’s the consequence of irresponsible sex?

For me the right to choose ends at coitus. To me, women insisting on a right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term should occur at coitus, with responsible family planning, condoms, birth control, Plan B. I take a Schrödinger's cat view on the womb. But to argue that some one can just decide, shit, I’m pregnant…. wait, I get a mulligan. Is life a pair of shoes, or TV to be returned because it didn’t match your plans for the house once you looked at it? Are women so irresponsible for their actions that we don’t expect them to have responsible sex?

If I ever shot some one, or hit them with a car, or got a woman pregnant, I would be held accountable. I have signed up for the draft. I have never hit a woman, nor raped one. Male privalege....I gather male privilege gets me greater pay and opinions are given more weight; so long as they arent any men involved.

Female privilege is a willing, self inflicted infantilzation. When I was younger and had less tact I would help the women standing around something to be lifted, and once I was done, I would flex and say “That’s why we get paid more.” They never complained, I never got in trouble.

Hehe . . . . mulligan.

Hmmmmmm

Paul,

You believe 304 million Americans should adopt a personality responsibility value system and set of laws that require any woman and all women to carry a baby to term if she gets pregnant because she didn't use birth-control, compel the male she slept with to use birth-control, or didn't refrain from sex if she or him didn't want to use birth-control. Otherwise, you feel under any other circumstances, the woman can get an abortion. Underlying this perspective is the believe that once conception takes place, then this conception is entitled to the status of "personhood" and all rights of be treated as such. Did I understand your perspective correctly?

My "male perspective" ... 304 million Americans are not held accountable by the state or each other for each and every single individual act we do -- the outcomes. For example, if I were to hold every single white male and female accountable for any and every single act they did, that I perceived and experienced to be racist, then I'd be killing (murdering) hundreds of not thousands of whites every month. Now that would be just me -- 1 black male. Multiple this "personality responsibility, accountability, and punishment" value-system to 40 million blacks, and you'd have a race-war (lol). And this is just on the specific behavior or a racist act. Apply this logic to any human act that offends, insults, or has any percieved or experienced negative impact on another human being, and you've have 304 million human beings each seeking to punish, penalize, each other for every single individual act we each did.

So, again, I say to the "personal responsibility" proponents, as it relates to a female becoming pregnant due to not using birth-control or compeling the male to do such, you're being a hypocrite and unrealistic. You are selective picking and choosing which individual acts a person does in our society and deeming it negative based on some taken-for-granted belief and or self-interest -- in this case a "male" (or female) wanting to "dictate" how another human being copes with a pregnancy. Again, I would argue that until "any male" has to experience the reality of carrying a baby to term, inside a woman, that a "male perspective" about something he or she will never experience can at best only represent "input" not "decision-making" power. If two females or all females want to public policy or value-system debate or dialogue about abortion or non-abortion, about reproductive rights as it relates to women, then that would be a valid and sound discourse between parties who will experience the impact of whatever solution or penality they arrive at. But no man will ever have to experience this outcome -- being forced by values or law to abort or not abort, to carry a baby to term or not.

There is both a micro and macro perspective to adopt a value-system and laws that impact, regulation, and punish individual human beings and groups. As this relates to abortion or non-abortion, I say ALL MEN should defer to whatever any individual woman decides and all women decide as a group -- and for the simple reason men cannnot and will never experience abortion or non-abortion. Notions of personal responsibility and accountability cannot be applied in some abstract, universal, way to any and everything regardless of what the actual human experience will be -- doing such is an apples and oranges comparison ... such as saying I am responsible in how I use my gun compared to I am responsible in how I used birth control. If a man does not use birth-control when sleep with a woman and she does not, how do they both 50/50% share the consequences of "her getting pregnant"? He may have to pay child support or jointly support the child. But she may also have this responsibility. But how does the male equally split the out of carrying the child to term? Will the man pretend he is pregnant, carrying a baby inside a woman, pretend he is going through birth pain, pretend to going through all of the psychological, emotional, physical things of being pregnant? NOT! Even if the man has some deep-seated, absolutist, belief in some GOD, and he is doing GOD's will, by opposition abortion, I say let that GOD judge the woman -- not the man.

Again, on this issue of abortion and non-abortion, American culture, values, and laws are biased towards woman -- for no other reason than they presume that any and all men have EQUAL input and EQUAL decision-making rights on this human behavior and experience although no man and all man will never, ever, experience in any comparable way the outcome and impact in the way any or all woman will. As a Male-Voice and Male-Perspective, I say I don't have any fundamental right to 50% input or 50% decide what a woman does as it relates to her reproductive rights UNTIL I can and will experience the outcome of my input and decision-making in comparable ways she will. It's easy to rationalize what another human being ought to do, should do, and can do in the abstract and if you will never, ever, have to experience the impact, the outcome, of what you advocate:) I really do wish any and every male could experience the abortion or non-abortion experience -- and then see what our male perspective, self-interest, would be as individuals and a group. I doubt we'd be so quick to want to penalize women or dictate their reproductive rights.

Paul -- have you every had to make the decision as to whether you should abort or not abort, because of any reason or you didn't use birth-control, or compel your lover to use birth-control, or didn't refrain from sex? If the question seems absurd, as it relates to you because of your maleness, then you'll begin to understand the fundamental reason why you ought to defer to any and every woman's choice:)

I'm just baffled, angered, that MEN assume this 50% right, in some cases 100% right, to input and often dictate what any and all women can and cannot do, should and should not do, when it comes to the issue of abortion and non-abortion, even though we know we will never, ever, experience this human condition -- but at most, have to pay some child support, help support the child, or not have a son or daughter because the woman aborts. Who the hell am I (as male) to rationalize that my male-self-interest in not wanting to pay child support, or help raise a child, or want a child when my partner does not, trumps a woman not wanting to carry a child in her womb, go through birth-pain, and all else. Perhaps we need to come up with a technological way to FORCE, DICTATE all men to procreate if and when women want.

P.S. As for the other issues of men and women expecting the other to act-out some strong/weak roles in lifting boxes or who pays for the date, I say these examples reflect both men and women having adopted "internalized-sexist" values. In these cases, one has two options -- participate in the sexist-norm or don't participate (and diplomatically challenge it). For example: Even if I ask a woman out, I tell her upfront we are going dutch -- not the "whoever asked principle". The latter principle can be exploited by any man or woman simply by not "asking you out" or "asking you out less than the other" so one doesn't have to pay. Human beings can and will try to exploit in their favor any "neutral-principle." If any female askes me to lift something or do anything that remotely sounds like a "gender/biological role" then I will tell her FIRMLY -- "Are you asking me to do that because I'm biological male or because you're unable to do it regardless of your gender?" For example: My female partner will never, ever, ask me to dump trash, pump gas, pay for us going out, or anything "because I'm male" other than use my "penis" (which she doesn't have) to do orgasmic things (lol). Similarly, I do not subject to her such internalized sexist or gender role expectations. If we do, for some unconscious reasons, do such, then we immediate make the other aware of such, raise each other consciousness, and cease such behavior:)

In short, it is the values, beliefs, underlying our conduct (as individuals and groups), and the self-interests motivating those behaviors, and the rewards and punishments of conforming or not comforming (aside form our laws) that reinforce any ISM -- including sexism. On a superficial level, we can "blame" individuals and groups) men, women, whites, blacks, straights, etc). But on a more sophisticated level of understand and learning why we do what we do (as individuals and groups), we should focus on the root causes, both micro and macro, that motivate our actions.

Thanks you Paul for permitting me to passionately critique your "personality responsibility" perspective as it relates to women's reproductive chooses and rights ... and to comment on those life examples I too have witness you and Wax Ghost experience, including how men experience them. It would be awesome KNOWLEDGE is we could classify and tally up every single individual experience 304 million Americans have from bith to death, examine each of those acts within their respective classifications, and the classifications themselves, and come up with a win-win consensus on how 304 million Americans, with multiple-identities, values/beliefs, self-interests, and histories could live more harmoniously together as a nation. But unfortunately, I sense 304 million Americans are trapped in their tribal-identity/self-interests conflicts, where each of us as individuals and groups are more concerned with trying to dictate and control what "another" does. I nicknamed it the "God-Syndrome" where each of us as individuals and groups want to "make the world (all people in it) think and act in OUR SELF-IMAGE" -- including myself:)

The internet really must be a series of tubes. I wrote that hours ago and it just got posted. There must be a lot of internets out there.

LOL. Paul, hit your "refresh" browser button, assuming you have a high-speed ISP, and you'll see your post 9at least on this site) immediately (within 5 seconds:) There are other site, (my public policy sites) that take 1 to 5 minutes to post -- or the site moderate has to approve (or disapprove) the post. I don't like moderator sites, because it means I have to spend too much intellectual and rhetoric energy trying to learn what the moderator likes and dislikes opinion wise, when I'm posting not to obtain the approval of a moderator or fellow bloggers, but merely to share my perspectives -- pro and con, and learn from any positive or negative feed-back I get.

Onevoice, this comment is one of the MOST ridiculous and condescending things I have ever read on this website, short of obvious trolls, which I do not believe you are.

"As for gays and lesbians, I feel sorry for them. They want to emulate heterosexuals -- copy the heterosexual models, expand patriachy models to homosexuality ... aka butch/fem and so forth."

You feel sorry for me? Is there some reason to believe that I fall into your pathetic, stereotypical view of "gays and lesbians"? Do you know me? Are you fucking serious? Is it patriarchal for my fiancee and I to get married? How is this even possible? Would your view about our relationship change were you to see what we look like in person? UGH.

As for the topic at hand [sorry for the tangent], I think that the MAJOR problem here is that there are so many sweeping generalizations. Every time I read through the [generally well-meaning, which I do appreciate] comments posted by OneVoice and i'm still a guy, especially, I resist the urge to roll my eyes. The characterizations are just too simplistic to be taken seriously. I will elaborate on this using a few examples that have been discussed thus far. I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood anything that has been said, and hopefully we can continue the generally respectful discourse that is going on here.

1. The idea that women achieving equality and, as it was characterized by OneVoice, gaining privilege of their own [let it be noted that I don't agree with that assertion.} The idea that there is not enough equality to go around boggles my mind. I know that some people will argue that there are "isms" that all of us experience on different levels all the time due to the many factors of our existence and identity. This is generally true: in feminist theory we call this "intersectionality"; or, the idea that the different facets of our identity intersect within each person, and that nothing is as clear-cut as many people make it out to be. I don't think, though, that many of the "isms" that have been discussed are actually a manifestation of PRIVILEGE based on the different identities, etc that a person has.

Example: It could be argued that in a predominantly black neighborhood, a white person would be somehow mistreated or perhaps distrusted or insulted due to their race. I doubt that this is common, but perhaps it happens. In this case, there has been an instance in which being white was a detriment to the person being wronged. HOWEVER, this doesn't in any way mean the white person is being oppressed or is non-privilege.

To clarify, what I mean when I use the word privilege is that there are systematic structures of power that grant heightened opportunity and life chances to certain groups of people. It amounts to the discrimination of certain groups at the hands of others. In feminism, the focus is generally on the way men have historically and currently enjoyed privilege under historical and current power structures, whether those structures are government, law, or social expectations and institutions.

This is different than the example in which a white person's race is, in a specific situation, a detriment to them. The context is limited. The people being disrespectful or derogatory in the situation I outlined do not have a systematic, long-lasting ability to use their position of power to actually discriminate against the white man. They don't generally have the position of power, and thus no heightened vantage point from which to perpetuate true discrimination. Insulting behavior? Yes. That is bad, it shouldn't happen [I expect it is very uncommon anyways, but was used for the purpose of an illustrative example.] But they is not the same thing, and I think we should draw a distinction between them.

2. Men and their relationship to women's reproductive health. There are a few issues with the assertion that men are discriminated against in the legal area of family law. Let's say that the "discrimination" in question is in the form of the expectation of financial support for children that the man did not wish to have, but the woman chose to go through with the pregnancy [a choice she should have and a man should not be able to control for issues of bodily autonomy; that should be an obvious given] regardless of the man's desire not to support a child. This is a common theme brought up by people who are advocates of men's rights in the legal realm.

First of all, the idea that men should be responsible for caring for women and children IS a patriarchal ideal. We can use the example of Welfare legislation since the 1996 "reforms" were implemented. Women who are eligible for state-sponsored aid in order to care for their children are required to go to the biological father of the child and demand that he support them; she does so on behalf of the state, and the state assumes that it is his duty to support the woman and the children because he is the man. It is obviously a bit more complicated than I can get into here succinctly, but Anna Marie Smith does an awesome job outlining these problematic and patriarchal systems in her book Welfare Reform and Sexual Regulation. These ideals are based not on discrimination and ill-will toward men, or a desire to subjugate them for the benefit of women, but rather towards traditionalist view of the way families and gender dynamics should work according to politics influenced by sexist ideologies.

It is yet another example of how perceived female privilege is based not in a desire to privilege women or rob men of privilege, but rather to affirm sexist ideologies that perpetuate women's inferiority in various areas. Another awesome example was used upthread. When men are expected to carry or offer to carry heavy objects for women, that expectation is not rooted in the idea that women deserve to have men wait on them hand and foot. It is based on the [obviously untrue] idea that women are incapable of carrying boxes or schoolbooks or whatnot. It is based on ideals of women's physical inferiority to men.

Another example of a way in which a perceived privilege that women are "granted" is in actuality another form of subjugation is women's participation in the military. Men are upset [very much rightfully so!] that women do not have to sign up for the draft and are officially barred from certain military combat positions. However, this set-up is not intended to put men in a position of subjugation to women, but to re-affirm the idea that women are not as physically and emotionally capable as men. This is a blanket statement that makes no allowance for individual women and men and their various levels of performance.

It is also VERY important to note that women are not currently in the position of power necessary to either implement or fully overcome the ideology that women cannot life things or that women cannot satisfactorily serve in certain military positions. It was not feminists' idea or women's idea to make military policy that way or construct a social reality that assumes men are stronger and women are weaker. Not only are these things NOT "female privilege," they actually harm women and impede on our ability to live our day-to-day lives as valuable and respected individuals both socially and in the workplace.

These are just the tip of the iceberg, really, and I could go on and on and on [and have a lot to say about domestic violence myths], but I will end this post for now.

PS:

"I have had complete opposite experience with women and lifting at work. I work retail, have for the last 8 years. Time and time again I have seen groups of women stand around something that needed to be lifted while they wait for a man. Often, its me."

That is a perfect example of the internalization of gender myths by women. We are all products of the society that we live in, and the idea that women are weaker and men are stronger [which is obviously not uniform, as you noted in your statement] is very pervasive.

Just because women act in accordance with this gender expectation doesn't mean that it is not harmful to them, or that it does not keep in place ideals that assert women's inferiority. It does take a complex approach to analyzing situations like this to expose the basis for behaviors such as these. That is not to rob the women in question of their agency, but rather to note the social reality that they and everyone else live in and the effects that it has on ALL of us.

I would be careful to note that no where did I advocate criminalizing abortion. I merely shared my sense of values. I have never had to have an abortion decision discussion... because my partners and I have been responsible. Let me put it this way. Women have come a long way in the last 100 years or so. Women gained the right to vote and made advances into the military. Women, own land and enter onto contracts; we have female Generals, Senators, governors, and CEO's. How is it then the average woman can't be expected to have sex responsibly? It seems women feminists are attempting to gain the benefits that men have while shirking the responsibility. See the draft and abortion.

Take the phrases “be a lady“ & “be a gentleman.” Both require the subject to act with good manners and aplomb. Be a man; that is a different phrase all together. Sure, its probably outdated and perpetuates gender roles. But I don’t believe being a man is a bad thing. It tells the subject to be accountable for their actions, sacrifice, and be strong. Is there a female equivalent?

I would be careful to note that no where did I advocate criminalizing abortion. I merely shared my sense of values. I have never had to have an abortion decision discussion... because my partners and I have been responsible. Let me put it this way. Women have come a long way in the last 100 years or so. Women gained the right to vote and made advances into the military. Women, own land and enter onto contracts; we have female Generals, Senators, governors, and CEO's. How is it then the average woman can't be expected to have sex responsibly? It seems women feminists are attempting to gain the benefits that men have while shirking the responsibility. See the draft and abortion.

Take the phrases “be a lady“ & “be a gentleman.” Both require the subject to act with good manners and aplomb. Be a man; that is a different phrase all together. Sure, its probably outdated and perpetuates gender roles. But I don’t believe being a man is a bad thing. It tells the subject to be accountable for their actions, sacrifice, and be strong. Is there a female equivalent?

"How is it then the average woman can't be expected to have sex responsibly? It seems women feminists are attempting to gain the benefits that men have while shirking the responsibility. See the draft and abortion."

Paul, did you read my post above addressing the draft situation and gender?

I don't understand how women and men's benefits and costs in terms of sex and reproductive choides can be compared.

Men legally face a financial hardship if they assist in creating a child they do not want. However, the number of men who are actually subject to these rules is fairly small; that is, of course, not to discount their reality, which is admittedly unfair. It is not, however, a parallel to the situation that ALL woman are in when they face an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that one hardship is financial and the other is biological is also significant. It doesn't fully mitigate mens' situations, but it is a different type of scenario. A woman gives up her right to her BODY and many opportunities to behave autonomously and freely when she becomes pregnant. In fact, if she doesn't give up this behavioral agency while pregnant, as in the case of women who drink or do drugs during pregnancy, she faces legal, criminal prosecution. A man faces financial and legal consequences if he does not pay for a child he helped to create that many if not most [I don't have stats in front of me right now, but that is what I recall] manage to avoid, and the penalty for ignoring this stipulation is civil and financial action, rather than imprisonment.

Furthermore, if you had read my post above, you would have noted my points about the significant gender inequity in how these decisions about responsibility are framed. The expectation that women and children will be financially supported by men is also rooted in gendered expectations, even though it does have a logical aspect.

I also am not sure I follow your reasoning about how you and your sexual partners have been "responsible" but apparently "average women" are not as responsible. Can you give me an example? Are you saying that the "average woman" [what exactly does that mean?] doesn't use birth control or take protective measures to avoid pregnancy when having sex? I doubt that that is true. Many, MANY women use birth control when having sex. I am not sure if that is what you meant by "responsibility," but the reality is that, by that definition, many women are responsible when having sex. In light of that, your claim doesn't make sense.

It is also worth noting that the responsibility of making sure that birth control is used by a couple having sex should and does fall on BOTH partners. Why in the world is it that the WOMEN are seen as being irresponsible if they do not use birth control, but men are somehow not held accountable? This confuses me. At the very least, if a male having heterosexual sex suspects that their partner is not using birth control of some sort, they should use a condom. Using that extra form of birth control is something that men CAN control, and they should be equally responsible and expected to use them.

Then again, your comments also assume that abortions are [mis]used as a form of birth control, in lieu of preventative measures such as condoms or birth control pills. This is really just not the case. What about the numerous women who get pregnant while they are being "responsible" and using birth control to prevent pregnancy? That is very common. It is actually notable that lack of knowledge about how to properly use contraceptives could be corrected by comprehensive sex education. The lack of this knowledge is not due to women, but due to the policy decisions of a male-dominated government. This is irresponsible, [again, the concept of responsibility issue] but somehow these people are not held responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

Also, I am not sure what your point is supposed to be when you outline how women have come "so far" because we are now allowed the opportunity to be full citizens, at least legally speaking. That point means very little when the reality comes to light: women are extremely unrepresented in those professions, and in many of them they are blatantly discriminated against due to their sex. It is progress, but to act like it is a beautiful, equal world is just ignorant. Oh right, and what in the world does that have to do with women's reproductive freedom?

"Is there a female equivalent?"

Yes. "you _____ like a girl." The blank can be filled in with many different words. Example: "you throw like a girl," which is an insult used to criticize women's athletic ability, as well as to mock men who do not meet certain athletic standards. With that phrase, the use of it to insult men is most noticeable because it shows a common theme; in our society, one of the worst things a man can be like is a woman. It is one of the ultimate insults.

There is also "don't be such a girl." This is also used to refer to both genders, and is a clear affront to women's worth as people. It is used to criticize women who are emotional or behaving in a stereotypically feminine way. Example: female arachnophobes. They are acting due to a legitimate phobia, but instead are [intended negatively] labeled as behaving in accordance to a common gender myth; that women are [and should be]afraid of bugs. The negative connotations are obvious. For men, this insult is leveled due to their display of stereotypically feminine [and therefore obviously bad, according to this paradigm] traits such as being emotional, or refusing to assert their "manliness" with displays of misogyny or violence. Again, the negative connotations are obvious, and it is again confirmed that being "like a woman" is one of the worst insults to men.

While there is definitely, as you pointed out, nothing wrong with being a man, there is also nothing wrong with being a woman.

A major difference between your "be a man" example and my two examples of female equivalents, is that "be a man" encourages [while insulting the man in question] someone to display stereotypically masculine traits, which you outlined, which are also traits that are *valued* in our society. This is different from the examples I threw out because in examples of insults involving "being like women," stereotypically female traits are labeled as negative and undesirable; unvalued. It is also implied that those positive traits of accountability, sacrifice, and strength are ONLY traits that men have. Otherwise, the phrase would be "act like a decent human being!" Instead, the phrase indirectly makes the claim that those positive traits are directly linked to men, and thus that women do not possess them.

Also, I think it's interesting that I have never, before today, heard a man express dislike of the term "be a man," but that I learn about the harmful gender issues surrounding that ve