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