I am far from perfect. As a male feminist, I've stumbled, picked myself back up, learned and stumbled some more, and I am still stumbling - that is, to say, I've been in feminist movement for quite a while now and believe that part of being a feminist is about growth. I came to the feminist movement five years ago as a freshman and I am still learning and making mistakes.
As such, and in response to recent posts on this site about the involvement of men within feminism and whether they are "overrated," I'd like to make this post about how we, as men, can be better partners and allies to the feminist community.Please feel free to contribute and add your advice. It's the only way we'll learn to be better partners.
One: Look internally. To combat sexism, one has to first understand how, implicitly, one contributes to sexism. While we may feel the desire to point the finger and call out sexism, sometimes we must look within ourselves. Only by understand our own actions and how we interact with women can we engage the world in anti-sexist actions.
Two: Feminism is about the personal just as much as it is about the political. Being pro-choice and supporting gay marriage does not make one a feminist. Being an "activist" is simply not enough to call oneself a feminist. Feminism is also defined by how we interact with others, and especially women and our intimate partners. This goes back to point one of understanding ourselves. It also illustrates what MercurialGirl said in the "Overrated/Underrated" post about some progressive men still being "intimate terrorists."
Three: Don't expect a cookie. You don't get a pat on the back or more dates just because you're a feminist. To expect a reward for being a feminist is sort of like expecting accolades for being a good father, or paying your bills on time. You're a feminist because you see the injustices in the world, and have chosen to take actions because of it. This makes you a good person, and good people are everywhere, you're not special.
Four: Give up your male privilege. When I first entered this movement, I didn't understand what it really meant, but as I grew, I understood that we must give up our sense of entitlement. Unlike women, most of us have never faced the challenges of denied access, and when we are turned away by certain sects of feminism, the answer isn't to get upset, but to find other avenues that we are welcomed in, and can help. We don't deserve anything, other than being treated like human beings; and as human beings, we each have our own privileges, so there's no pouting when a less privileged group denies us access.
Five: Listen to women. By this, I don't simply mean following women's directions, but rather, critically listen to women's personal narratives and thoughts, and critically analyze what they say. This is not so that we can make a counter-argument or to dismiss their experiences, but rather, so that we can see things from their perspectives. Given that our experiences as males (and I am not inclined to say that all men have the same experiences - our sexual identities, education, color and class play a great part) are often much different than that of women, the only way we can be better allies is to listen and learn. While it's important to share our thoughts, it's more important to learn about theirs. Without such, we'll be doing feminism our ways and the way we see fit, rather than doing what women really need us to do.
Six: Put yourselves in women's shoes. Sometimes, as male feminists, we fail to be better partners because we see things from male perspectives. Our lens is a privileged one, and while I don't doubt that the majority of us mean well, even as feminists, we've grown into a male-centered culture in which we view the world through our privileges. Even when we think we mean well in what we're doing, we have to stop and ask, "Well, how would she feel about this?"
Seven: Remember that while we may be equals in feminism, our experiences will dictate that we, as men, as the privileged ones. This means that our gender does matter. While we may see ourselves as "just another guy in feminism," women may not see it as such. I look in the mirror and I see myself a man, but many women, based on experiences, will associate maleness with power, or intimidation, or pain. That said, be aware of your sex, and that you being a man within the feminist movement does matter and have all types of implications of power that can be used to thwart women's voices.
Eight: You don't take the lead. While there are areas in which men can certainly take the lead to combat sexism, being a leader of a feminist organization for women is not one of them. Feminism is about empowering women, and while men can gain a great deal from feminism as well, your involvement in leadership positions will firstly take power away from women; secondly, it will prevent some women from speaking up; and thirdly, from an epistemological perspective, brings nothing positive to the movement. Want to take the lead? You work with men to end sexism. Feminism belongs to you as much as it does to women, but until the violence stops; until one out of four women is no longer raped; when the rest of the world actually sees women as equals, it will always be women-centered. You belong behind and beside women, never in front of them.
Nine: Remember that you're not doing women any favors. You're doing this because you have a stake in it, too. Women are not damsels in distress and you're not a knight in shining armor.
The feminist movement thrived without men in the past, and will continue to thrive with or without men. In feminism, we're partners and allies, and until we stop pounding our chests and acting as if we're some sort of heroes (a sign of unresolved masculinity and male privilege), we're still not being good allies.
Ten: Work with other men. Listen to male mentors. There are many out there, and while you (and I) may feel like they're of the "old school" and have nothing interesting to say, they've been through this before and can offer invaluable lessons as to how to be better male allies and partners. No one learns on their own, and just as it's important to learn from women about their experiences, we can learn from men who have come before us about our roles within feminism. Those men include Jackson Katz, Michael Kimmel, George Marx, Jason Schultz and perhaps even your own father, and all the great folks over at the National Organization for Men Against Sexism.
Also, engage other men. You have male privilege; you can talk to other men. You don't have to appear preachy, but by just simply engaging other men in conversations about their relationships and views about women, you can influence them to be better men and better feminists. In the end, no matter where you are in life, you're valuable, too, because you've recognized the importance of feminism, and you can do a lot by reaching out to other men. There are millions of young men out there needing directions and waiting for answers, you can be that answer.
Good luck!
Marc
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How men can be better feminists/allies/partners.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13643
!!! great post.
I think this statement got to the crux of a lot of the problems we've been having this week: (from point number 8) "Feminism belongs to you as much as it does to women, but until the violence stops; until one out of four women is no longer raped; when the rest of the world actually sees women as equals, it will always be women-centered."
This was awesome to read. It's also interesting to see how women react as a function of these points. For example, I'm a feminist but I still fall into #3's trap: because there are few self-identified male feminists, I feel the need to reward them to encourage their behavior (sorry I just came out of a psychology exam). It's a tragedy that we feel compelled to positively reinforce individuals for even thinking about equal rights issues, something that should not be in question in the first place. As with the above poster, I think you hit the nail on the head as to why feminism tends to focus on women. Thanks for posting, you've enlightened us all :)
I think some positive reinforcement is still good, just not absolute praise and kowtowing. Let men know they did something right.
Like when my boyfriend tells me stories of battles against sexist words from friends, I usually reply with a "good" which translates to "you're doing it right." Likewise when any of his friends do stuff that could be considered pro-feminists, he encourages them with "you're doing it right" phrases.
Of course, not every little thing should be mentioned. Just big steps and new steps toward becoming a better person, and from that moment on men should know they are doing it right if they aren't corrected. I just think that it's never bad to let anyone know they are doing feminism right, men or women. Of course, it gets difficult since there are so many ideas about feminism, but 101 stuff should at least get "you're right, that's good" until it's fully understood that and why it is good. (not that feminism is hard for men to understand, just the privileged lens thing and all.)
Sorry to post on my own entry, but as I was having dinner and thinking about certain controversies back home with our local NOW organization, points 11 and 12 came up.
Eleven: no using the argument "patriarchy hurts men, too" to emotionally manipulate women or as an excuse for your misogynistic behaviors when you get called out. Sure, patriarchy absolutely hurts men, too, but until men have to deal with the same kinds of shit women are subjected to, there's really no room for complaining.
Twelve: Feminism is not a dating service - if you think women should fall all over you just because you're feminist, you're in the wrong movement. If, in the course of doing feminism, you happen to meet someone and you both want to date, then fine. But if you think feminism is a dating service, it doesn't need you, and you don't need it - you need to learn social skills as to not have to use feminism to get closer to women.
I think that telling people they need to learn 'social skills' is a fairly arrogant and patronizing way of communicating. It is one thing to offer advice and pointers to men as to how they (or we) can be more supportive of feminism and the feminist movement and quite another to lecture people about what you believe and telling people they need to learn social skills (exactly what social skills are you referring to, anyway?) is more characteristic of the latter than the former. Yes, men should refrain from identifying as a feminists as a means of trying to court women but any man who is genuinely interested in feminism and being feminist probably already knows this without your lecturing him.
But I like cookies!
I guess it's a good thing I know how to bake.
Thank you for writing this post, and for your contributions to feministing, which are always a pleasure to read.
Another: don't let your proud self-identification as "a feminist guy, not like those other guys" make you get all indignant and outraged when someone accuses of you of acting like those other guys. You probably are. "This is what a feminist looks like" shirt notwithstanding.
I like that! I was talking to a male feminist friend earlier and he said the mistake most beginning feminist men make is thinking that they are not sexist, and thus refuse to listening to anyone who claims their behavior is sexist.
But, of course, some feminists, be they male or female, need those of us who are "veterans" to be patient with them. Had my professors, mentors, friends and everyone else who knew more than I did just given up on me for being a shithead, I'd continued my ways without knowing any differently.
This post is fantastic! I'm glad that way men can actually help has been put into words.
It is also required to take action, in daily life for feminist goals. If you are interviewing a person for the job, make sure your own prejudices do not interfere with them, if you think that they do not, think harder. Also if a man and a woman are applying and have equal qualifications, hire the women. (That is the correct thing to do, look around you office, not very many women in important positions? fix that.) Also constantly correct people who make misogynist jokes. And no, you don't have to explain why their sexist, just tell them to stop. (If someone asks you why they should stop telling misogynst jokes,you're not going to convince them otherwise).
Read feminist literature. Read feminist literary critique on other literature you read.
Give money to womens causes, and give anonymously, don't do it to be congratulated. Causes need money to operate, to gain access to lawmakers, or to provide help and treatment for women.
Awesome. Every self identified male feminist should read this.
I'd like to add another: Don't try and make issues ALL ABOUT YOU/MEN. If we're discussing FGM, let's discuss that. If you want to discuss male circumcision, start another post. Etc. Not sure if it's guys who call themselves feminists who are the ones doing things like this, but it really bothers me.
The FGM diversion was pretty inexcusable. (I'll avoid a rant on the unethicalness of conflating female genital mutilation with male circumcision, but even without the derailing ... it's bad). It is a woman's problem.
On the other hand, if I favour egalitarian ethics, then is it problematic that I might object to a human's problem being framed as a woman's problem? Chas (below) cites rape & domestic violence as women's problems, but in the latter case (at least), this might not really be that appropriate. Domestic violence rates might not be very far off (Depends on whose stats you believe, but for minor assault it's generally very close: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/mlintima-eng.php say, and even by murder it's perhaps 4:1 http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/spousal.html careful about cross-culturing, I've used the Canadian rate there, apparently Americans are much closer: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:2YOB8-ZGja8J:psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/WhoKills.pdf+Spousal+murder+rates+site:.ca&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a), - there's probably more here (for instance, the reason I've never been a victim of domestic violence is highly related to my sex: I'm 6'3" and ~250 lbs. I just haven't dated any women who could inflict serious violence on me without a weapon, though (at least) one would have if our sizes had been reversed, and I'd been 5'7" and 170 lbs.) Framing matters, I suppose. "Domestic violence is a problem (some) women face." is a correct statement, but "Domestic violence is a problem owned by women." is not, and if I'm egalitarian, I should find the latter statement objectionable.
It's probably almost always inappropriate to say "This issue is about men", I agree. But there is a midway point where "This issue is about women" is also not correct, where it is an issue about people. Yeah, that's a tricky ground to walk. Maybe I'm completely off base in this regard, but it looks like/sounds like a communication-oriented dispute than a substance-oriented dispute. (In some cases - the example you cite is not like that, so perhaps I'm remiss in addressing this as a response to you rather than a general thought/question.)
Maybe I ought to conclude by asking, whether I'd be remiss to suggest "One ought to look at problems that cut across gender lines as they are, rather than try to separate men & women artificially."? (of course, when this'll be the case'll depend strongly on how different you think genders are, and I probably lie towards the "not that different" end of the spectrum, so one might feel free to discount all of this is they're far away from there.)
be concerned about general human problems all you want. but don't try to derail feminist efforts with them. feminism isn't here to cure everything wrong in the world. it's here to end the oppression of women.
and if the question is why feminism should focus only on women in this way, the answer would i think be that, if experience has taught us anything, it's that when "people's" interests are being considered in a supposedly gender-neutral way, somehow the men's interests come out getting privileged attention. that's why we need a focus on women's interests, sometimes to the exclusion of even closely related male interests. that's why we need, as you put it, to separate women's interests "artificially" -- because people really really suck at being gender-blind.
again, if you want to fight for male interests, great, awesome, good goal, but don't dilute feminist efforts with it.
If you reject my premise that there are human problems, rather than separate men's problems and women's problems, then yes, the conclusion doesn't follow.
Men's and women's gender issues are intertwined. To solve anyone's gender issues, it takes a holistic approach (for instance, you can't eliminate rape without addressing the aggressive masculine ideal), and that holistic approach focuses primarily on women's issues, and rightly so, because oppression of women is where the heart of the problem is.
It doesn't dilute feminism to take on racial issues. It doesn't dilute feminism to take on GLBT issues. So it doesn't dilute feminism, which is based in fighting the patriarchy, to take on patriarchal subjugation of males from time to time. It's intersectionalism, and this blog is good at it.
And male circumcision doesn't need to always be brough up when talking about FGM. The focus ALWAYS swicthes from FGM to how "equally" bad they are, or how us female feminists are ignoring male oppression. It's unacceptable and is just another way of butting the spotlight on men. Not everything is centered around men.
This seems to be a strawman, given that this thread explicitly sets out that bringing up circumcision in a female genital mutilation discussion is never, ever appropriate right from the get-go, and we all (seemingly) agree on this. Female genital mutilation is perhaps a perfect example of a problem that is a woman's problem, where saying "What about the men?" is not only derailing, but equating the two situations is patently unethical.
Women and men are both human, and we have shared problems, partially shared problems, and (essentially) unshared problems. Whether it's appropriate to exclude men or women as victims from our shared problems is the question I've posed, not whether it's appropriate to exclude one or the other from our unshared problems (where the answer should be obvious).
yep. But I was responding to the intersectionality comment. There's a difference between men and women both being affected by something (changing their genitalia) and saying that they're the exact same thing every single time we discuss FGM. Then it's not about an issue that affects both, it's a complete derailment and showing a clear lack of knowledge.
Well, okay, that's specifically fair, though I still feel like it's sort of misleading in context Circumcision and female genital mutilation aren't comparable. Even if we forget derailing, equating them is still wrong, because they're not equivalent. The derailing springs from their inequivalency, and they're just being equated to try and steal the problematicness of female genital mutilation and use it make circumcision seem more problematic, in doing so, it also trivialises female genital mutilation. So this is ... enormously unethical. And it derails. But focusing on how it's wrong because it derails misses the big problem. And using it as a typical example misses the point because it's not a case of equivalency, where saying "This is a human problem" is a true statement. It's a false statement.
Contrast domestic violence. While women make up the majority of victims, the male victims are a nontrivial minority, where their experiences are roughly equivalent (there's some small differences, but the overlap is large compared to the separation.), considering the cases of spouses/partners who are the subject of violence/abuse from their partners generally is often more worthwhile than framing it is a heterosexual women as victims/heterosexual men as abusers model. There are some special considerations (for instance, in one study I read, 4% of abused women in homosexual relationships were unable to use abused womens' shelters because their partners worked there - probably this doesn't occur in heterosexual situations, so this aspect requires special consideration for only some victims).
Anyways, this all might be hooey. Maybe men and women are always necessarily different. Not my impression, but I'm often wrong. But if I'm posing the question of "Is it ever appropriate to frame a question as a human problem?", then an example problem needs to at least be a plausible candidate.
But talking about domestic violence victims and genital mutilation are different. When men experience DV-they're being abused. The female victims? Also abused.
FGM-experienced by women. Male circumcision-men. They don't have the same or similar effects. One takes any sexual pleasure away, another may decrease it.
So while they all suffer, the degree of suffering is not comparable when FGM is discussed. I'd think men and women could both suffer tremendously b/c of DV, but with genital mutilation, the two situations AREN'T comparable.
Err - this seems to agree completely with what I'm saying. At the very least, unless I misunderstand what you're saying, I agree with you completely.
Would you agree then that it's not appropriate to try and broaden the topic of female genital mutilation to include male circumcision, but it is (sometimes) appropriate to broaden the topic of male abuser/female abusee domestic violence to a broader discussion with all relevant gender configurations? (Bearing in mind the sometimes is not always, see my note about female homosexual situations above.)
I'm really only confused because you open with: "But talking about domestic violence victims and genital mutilation are different." - "But" implies to me that you're disagreeing with me, but for the life of me, I can't see how.
I suppose even if I'm right, we need to rely on people to be reasonable about when it is, or isn't, appropriate to frame the discussion more appropriately, and you can't always do that. (At least, there was a colossal failure to do so in the recent Female Genital Mutilation discussion.)
"feminism isn't here to cure everything wrong in the world. it's here to end the oppression of women." I have to strongly disagree here, as a feminist socialist I believe you cannot address the oppression of women without also talking about sexuality, race and class based oppression and YES I do think that feminism should aim to cure all these problems otherwise its a pretty shoddy ideology. Dream big.
You know what? I think sometimes you feminists take it for granted that I have the ability to CHOOSE what ideals I suppoert, and I can CHOOSE where I expend my energies. And you know what else? I have no interest in supporting a movement that tells me my place is "behind or beside" women. Sorry. When you're abrasive to the people you're asking for help, don't be surprised when you don't get much.
To reply to you, Hfeld, with a quote from the OP:
"Nine: Remember that you're not doing women any favors. You're doing this because you have a stake in it, too. Women are not damsels in distress and you're not a knight in shining armor.
The feminist movement thrived without men in the past, and will continue to thrive with or without men. In feminism, we're partners and allies, and until we stop pounding our chests and acting as if we're some sort of heroes (a sign of unresolved masculinity and male privilege), we're still not being good allies."
Please try to hear this in the spirit in which it is intended. I speak for myself and not for all women. I want men to support gender equality, not because I want your 'help' but because it is the right thing to do. I want men to be feminist even when there is no one to see them and no one to know they did the right thing. Then I will know that they are truly doing it because gender inequity is wrong and not because they want to save us or want accolades.
Well, I'm sorry, but the feminist movement CANNOT thrive without men. You know why? Men comprise 50% of the planet.
To elaborate- whenever you "fight" for social equality, you are asking for the world's help in changing the status quo. Whenever you bring up laws or ordinances that need to be changed, you are asking for the world's cooperation. And no, you cannot do with without the help of men. Not because men are any more important that women, but because, again, they comprise 50% of any given community. Furthermore, in postmodern feminism, it is mainly ideals and cultural attitudes that you want to change (ie, the rape culture, the wage gap). And, guess what? Is it mainly men who hold many of the attitudes you dislike. So, essentially, you are asking the *men* of the world (or primarily the men, I guess there are conservative women) to change their viewpoints.
Sure sounds like you're asking for help.
I've not said to exclude men. It is obvious that they need to be a part of the movement or at least be supportive in order for change to happen - because they are in a position of power and privilege. That is not the same as asking them to take pity on me and help me because I am in a position of less power and privilege.
"So, essentially, you are asking the *men* of the world (or primarily the men, I guess there are conservative women) to change their viewpoints."
I am not *asking* men to change their viewpoints in order to help us poor women-folk. I am telling them about the systemic inequalities and power differentials that make their current viewpoints damaging and destructive. It is up to them to decide to change that because it is the right thing to do, not as some sort of knight in shining armor riding in to 'save' us from the rest of the world.
Men should not receive additional accolades simply for choosing to treat everyone as equals and trying to work against privileged power relations. A male feminist or feminist ally should do these things because they are right - not for a prize. It is admirable to work for equality across the board, but it should be the norm.
A thread that keeps getting lost in this discussion is the fact that none of us are saying that men should not be feminist or should not support feminist causes. No one is saying that men should not voice their thoughts and opinions. All that is being asked is that you understand that the privilege inherent in that status can cloud both the way that you perceive gender inequality and can affect the way that women hear your voices. We are socialized to give more weight to a male voice. Sometimes a single male voice is all that it takes to shut down a needed discussion. In cases where it is obvious that the issue is very sensitive to the women involved, I am advocating that you listen first, then ask if there is any way that you can assist, and finally - then offer that you have suggestions that may be helpful. Don't be upset if they don't take you up on the offer or if they do and your suggestions aren't accepted. There is a good chance that your perspective on the issue is too different from what others are seeing and what seems simple to you may be unworkable on many levels.
I appreciate all of the people who work towards reducing and removing power differentials. Please just keep in mind that it is always best to listen and not use your voice to invalidate another's lived experiences.
I think that, as seems to happen a lot here, you are overstating the power of the "male voice". In many circles, I just don't believe that the power balance is that lopsided. Especially in feminist circles, it is in fact men's voices that are scorned and ignored by the supposedly "independent" women (apparently this is now synonymous with "rude").
Here's another thing that may get me burned- I think that male feminists *are* worthy of more admiration than female feminists. I'm not saying male feminists should be patted on the head all the time- I can see how that would be irritating. But the fact is that men have no personal stake in feminism- in fact, they are fighting to DECREASE their societal privilege. For example- mahjani. I assume you are female, and it's probably likely that you are invested in feminism. But why? Why not spend all your time with racial issues, or gay rights... why are you on feministing.com? Probably because you're a woman, and you want the personal rights that will come with gender equality. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but male feminists (or white civil rights leaders, or heterosexual gay rights activists) have no stake, nothing to gain. And I think that's more noble than those who support a movement because they ahve something tangible to gain.
If you've got a straight, white, male, upper class guy, he's been told his whole life about how he;s at the top of the pyramid, and he never has to worry about any kind of discrimination. It's been insinuated since birth. And if this guy chooses to REJECT this kingly privilege and work for social equality.... well, I find that extremely noble and admirable.
It's a hell of a lot harder to reject someone telling you that "you're superior" than it is to reject someone telling you that "you're inferior".
"I think that, as seems to happen a lot here, you are overstating the power of the "male voice".
I am sorry - I am not sure if I will be able to talk with you more here on this topic. I see this every day both in academic and non-academic circles. I see it in my own field and in the arts. My lived experience as a woman seeing this happen everyday is not silenced by your wish for it to be so.
"Here's another thing that may get me burned- I think that male feminists *are* worthy of more admiration than female feminists."
"For example- mahjani. I assume you are female, and it's probably likely that you are invested in feminism. But why? Why not spend all your time with racial issues, or gay rights... why are you on feministing.com? Probably because you're a woman, and you want the personal rights that will come with gender equality."
As you don't know me, I will tell you this: I am a member of and advocate for gay rights, the gender queer movement, anti-racism groups, anti-classism, and any other area of power differential where I can be of service. I do this because it is right - not because it will benefit me personally. I do it because as a married cis gendered woman in a relationship with a cis gendered man it is important to me to break down the privilege that our society gives to those things and work for the equality of all people. No - you don't get a cookie for being extra special. Neither do I. Do what is right and stop expecting people to laud you for it.
"It's a hell of a lot harder to reject someone telling you that "you're superior" than it is to reject someone telling you that "you're inferior"."
No - it's not. When you are intellectually honest enough to hear "you're superior" as "you are better than *them*" then it is your duty as a good person interested in equality to reject it.
Your experience "as a woman"? Well, I'm not going to do this again, but in a previous debate almost exactly like this one I asked precisely 20 of my female acquaintances whether they had ever felt shut out of a classroom (academic) or other mixed-gender (not solely male) conversation. 19 of those 20 said no. I will admit many women are shut out of discussion when it's a bunch of dudes, but if the tables were turned I don't think it would be much different. Take that as you will. I don't mean to be rude, again- but I feel as though feminists often create these supposedly sexist attitudes when they don't exist.
I'm sorry I used you as an example. Obviously I was off. But my larger point is undeniable. Why are there so many white, middle-class women involved in feminism? Because it offers something tangible for them to gain. Many of these women are marginally involved or theoretically supportive of other civil rights groups, but are mainly concerned with feminism. That's just inarguable. So forgive me when I say that it is more admirable for one with nothing to gain to assist with a civil rights movement.
And as you seem to think I am a spoiled, privileged white male, try this on for size: You are not a spoiled, privileged white male. My lived experience as a privileged person tells me it is much harder to say not to a message saying "you're superior". This is not silenced by your wish for it not to be so.
Thank you for attempting to nullify my experiences. Nothing you have said changes my lived experiences and nothing you can say will do so.
"And as you seem to think I am a spoiled, privileged white male, try this on for size: You are not a spoiled, privileged white male. My lived experience as a privileged person tells me it is much harder to say not to a message saying "you're superior". This is not silenced by your wish for it not to be so."
Take this as you will: The ability to say that is part of the privilege of being a party to the classes that you mentioned. A person with those characteristics in the US has likely never had to deal with the societal pressures of being told that you are an inferior class of person. Those in power can always choose. Those without it must struggle to do so because they are working against the power differential. If society tells women that they are inferior and women disagree with that...society still has the power to enforce it. A person in the more privileged class can choose to acknowledge and work against their privilege, but it does not automatically disappear if they reject the notion that they are superior.
I'm not trying to "nullify" your experiences, per se. What *I* personally think is that you are overly paranoid and hypersensitive to every possible slight, real or imagined. *I* think that you create a misogynistic slant to every possible situation, an *I* think that is why you see sexism everywhere, even though in reality it doesn't exist in nearly that quantity. I don't know you, but this has been *my* experience with many feminists, and nothing you say can ever change *my* experience.
As to your second paragraph, I don't really know what you're trying to say. I should clarify that I was being sarcastic in my previous post, since I'm not sure if you took it literally? I don't know why the fact that I "have privilege" (already admitted it), makes the fact any less valid.
When you tell someone they are hypersensitive and paranoid, you ARE trying to nullify their experiences. You are telling someone that their perceptions of their experiences are wrong. Now when you do that, you had better be able to stand up for it.
I'm backing it up with the twenty AIM conversations I had with various non-feminist women- that story is completely true. I'm not trying to say you're actively lying- but based on overwhelming evidence, I think that you see misogyny everywhere because you look for it, and draw incorrect conclusions from nonexistent displays of sexism.
Though you are responding to Dangerfield, I will try to put your number in perspective for you to help you see how it is different in both weight and scope.
20 AIM conversations is not equal to 20 years (for me) or more (for others) as an adult woman in an environment where I have experienced this quite often. Perhaps you are in a discipline or location where everyone is awesome and sexism is a thing of the past. That's great; many of us are not so lucky.
You can claim paranoia as much as you like, but you don't know me and if you did you would see how laughable that statement is. Please read the links that others have provided to you in this thread and take some time to work with a local feminist organization (or if these discussions have you too frustrated with feminism right now choose a local anti-racist or other advocacy organization) so that you can get a better feel for the best ways to be an ally to these causes. You are obviously quite passionate - which is a good thing...now to direct that passion in the way where the most good is achieved will be an admirable goal.
I'm not trying to "nullify" your experiences, per se. What *I* personally think is that you are overly paranoid and hypersensitive to every possible slight, real or imagined. *I* think that you create a misogynistic slant to every possible situation, an *I* think that is why you see sexism everywhere, even though in reality it doesn't exist in nearly that quantity. I don't know you, but this has been *my* experience with many feminists, and nothing you say can ever change *my* experience.
As to your second paragraph, I don't really know what you're trying to say. I should clarify that I was being sarcastic in my previous post, since I'm not sure if you took it literally? I don't know why the fact that I "have privilege" (already admitted it), makes the fact any less valid.
Argh, something's wrong with my computer, I don't know why that posted twice.
"So forgive me when I say that it is more admirable for one with nothing to gain to assist with a civil rights movement."
This is not a good attitude for a number of reasons. One, male feminists have a ton at stake in fighting for feminism. To say otherwise is to do us a disservice in general and to dismiss our own issues with patriarchy in particular.
Two, its dripping with the worst kind of patronizing privilege. When you present male feminists as more admirable than female feminists, you are destroying the egalitarian anti-patriarchal social structure that defines feminism in the first place. You are essentially nullifying the goals of the movement. Remember everyone gives up some patriarchal cred to participate in feminism, so no one is special because you think they gave up more.
Okay, can you please stop referring to *everything* you disagree with as somehow stemming from "my privilege"? That's like the go-to argument for everyone here, because OF COURSE, I can't see this supposed privilege and thus I can't argue against it. But I will anyway- I disagree. I don't think I have exercised privilege once in this entire thread, I'm just using logic. This isn't just feminism. A wealthy person who works in a soup kitchen is more impressive than a poor man who works there because he gets food and shelter.
You need to check out this site: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/
Okay... thanks for yet again falling back on the "lol you're privileged and don't know it" argument. I read the intro, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read the rest, it looks pretty standard. I have stated my opinions on the matter, and have no once talked down to anyone here, asserted any kind of privilege, and I have certainly not derailed the discussion- being as the OP is ABOUT MALE FEMINISTS. In fact, your bald links and claims that I'm "blinded by privilege" sound a lot more like derailment than anything I've done.
You know what else? I think it's a "privilege" (by your definition) that you get to link to random articles like this. Non-feminists need to back such links up with explanations and context. Check your privilege, bud.
Postmodern feminism is just about "changing attitudes"? The hell?
Shouldn't a captcha have weeded you out?
"I have no interest in supporting a movement that tells me my place is "behind or beside" women."
Where do you want to be? In front?
Who asked for your help?
I personally do NOT want you for an ally. If you are only going to CHOOSE to fight for social equality and social justice because of what you get from it, then you are useless.
Hey, I don't necessarily want anything out of it. I just don't want to be demeaned and looked down upon by those who I am trying to assist.
OP: "It's a women's movement, women should lead it"
You: "You want me to work alongside women rather than leading them? How demeaning! I feel myself becoming anti-feminist -- and it's YOUR fault!"
Goodbye. We will do fine without you, even if you carry through with your threat to "CHOOSE" anti-feminist ideals.
I'm not saying I want to lead women in a woman's movement. I'm saying I don't want to be *told* I can't take the lead. I want that choice to be mine- and hey, if feminists don't want to follow me, that's their choice too.
Sure, you can take the lead if you want, no one is telling you you specifically can't, only that that is not helpful. Notice the title of this thread: "how men can be better feminists." If that is not your goal, then go right ahead and lead a female focused movement with your maleness.
I don't see how it's not helpful, though. If I have an idea or a vision, I don't want to be told I "can't lead" a social movement. If women or feminists in general think I'm full of it, they won't follow me. And if they do think I'm onto something, well, then that's a good thing, is it not? Ultimately I fail to see how my "maleness" is any detriment to my ideas (whatever they may be).
It's detrimental for the reason that has been repeated in this thread over and over again: your male experiences cannot compare to those of women. You can try, you can be empathetic, but you can never truly understand the needs of women. It's no different than me, as a white person, leading a movement for minorities. Or as a heterosexual leading a LGBT movement. I can participate, I can be a voice, I can be active in the community, and it's important I do so as a person with power, but my paradigm is perverted by privilege. And when the privileged speak for the unprivileged, we silence their voices and their experiences.
The only other way I can explain this, w/o using rhetoric, is to give you an example. I'm female, but I'm extremely privileged, so most of my feminist dialogue has pertained to things that directly effect me as a white woman. I got a wake up call from one of the women from http://www.racialicious.com/, so I started reading there. They have an amazing, eye opening community and I am a supportive voice there, but mostly a silent one. There is no way I could lead these women nor speak for them because I cannot, no matter how much compassion I have, understand their plight through my privilege. It would be insulting for me to try, as if I, a white rich person, need to save them. So I stand beside or behind them and give all my support that I can under my restrictive paradigm.
Sorry for the double post. I find that you're making sense, to be honest... but I still disagree on a key point.
If I come up with an idea and ask for support, and I recieve it wholeheartedly... how is that bad? I think I can take that as a go ahead. If I am scorned, then I may step back and examine my viewpoint, to see if there's anything I'm missing. But I find nothing wrong with trying. And one more thing. I can't accept that my voice will "silence" a minority in a community FOR THAT MINORITY (an example is feministing). If I went in, for example, a woman's convention and presented an idea and asked for support, I find the notion that I will "drown out" the voices of the women completely implausible.
I don't see how it's not helpful, though. If I have an idea or a vision, I don't want to be told I "can't lead" a social movement. If women or feminists in general think I'm full of it, they won't follow me. And if they do think I'm onto something, well, then that's a good thing, is it not? Ultimately I fail to see how my "maleness" is any detriment to my ideas (whatever they may be).
They're a detriment insofar as you're coming from the position of oppressor and rejecting those ideals. What you can do, as someone not being oppressed, is great in scope, however being from the oppressor position, it's easier to be suspect of them.
From a personal perspective, I'm often "the gay one" to people who are well-meaning straight people. They consider themselves allies, which they can be, but don't realize the marginalizing affect on me when I'm reduced as a person solely to who I want to have sex with. The same can happen within feminism. As a well-meaning man-as-feminist, you can do similar things which can prove to be damaging without your knowledge. You certainly can lead, but there may be some reluctance since you may not be fully aware of the ways in which your privilege shows.
The same, of course, also goes for me.
Sometimes women feel uncomfortable with being assisted. This goes back to us having to think outside of our own experiences. You and I may see ourselves as helpful, but to some women, it becomes uncomfortable when we are too involved in the movement.
It doesn't matter how we see ourselves in this sense, or how genuine our desire to help is, what matters is whether our desire to help with progress or hinder women's fight for equality.
If, through their lens, it's hindering their progress, then we're not really helping, are we?
If we want to truly be partners, we have to start thinking not about us and what we do or do not want, but rather, whether what we're doing will truly benefit women, be they our sisters, friends, lovers, or fellow activists.
Marc
?
huh?
I get the sense that you're reacting negatively to this because you think that somehow, serving "beside and behind" women in the feminist movement means that we have to give up our power as men. In a sense, it's true.
But in a sense, it's also about partnership, and us being there for support. The fact is that we can come up with ideas, we can contribute, we can speak out against sexism - as partners and on our own, but when we take the lead, it reeks of privilege and at the same time, not knowing women's experiences, our ideas may be skewed, no matter how brilliant we think they are.
I reject the idea of naturally-born leaders. Leaders are sometimes bred out of privilege and lived experiences, and thus we need to recognize that our need to "lead" isn't biological, and that we can take a step back to let women have a chance to lead, for a change, and because from their perspectives, they can see things better than we can. There's nothing wrong us a change in the guard, unless we let our egos get bruised.
Besides, feminism is about growth, as I said - and sometimes, we need to learn to follow before we can lead.
And lastly - there are plenty of opportunities for us to lead, whether explicitly by starting up a "Men Can Stop Rape" chapter locally, or implicitly by simply engaging other men in dialogues. Leadership isn't confined to just standing in front of women, telling them about their plights and telling them where we're heading next.
Otherwise, I have this really funny picture in my mind of an old man with long beards leading a bunch of women to the promised land. We're no Moses. :)
Okay. A lot of people have responded to me, and I think I'll start here.
Um... I guess I do see what you're saying, and like I said earlier it makes sense. I guess a big thing I take issue with that taking the lead is "exercising privilege". It feels like, "Well, okay, we want to you to support women's rights- oh, and be sure to be outspoken to your male friends- but not TOO much, because then you're just privileged in a DIFFERENT WAY." It's like you're making all these demands and setting up this tiny box of acceptability that you want all men to fit into.
It's NOT that I think that I am "biologically fit" to lead because I'm a man- I don't. I also don't think that women are less capable of leading a group. And I don't have any qualms about giving up my power "as a man", really. I have qualms about giving up by power as a person.
I'm not sure if that makes sense. It's just that I don't like to be told that I CAN'T take the lead if I want and that I need to "restrain" myself and remain in the background. I have no problem with giving up my power as a man. What I don't like is transferring this power to females because they are women.
I think these ideas should apply to all people -- not just men. Women can contribute to their own oppression and to the oppression of others, including themselves and other minorities. Women can fail to look internally and externally to understand social injustice and power. Women can abuse their privilege and forget to listen to and understand the experiences of others.
We as people make these mistakes and take these actions. While I do think analyzing power structures and understanding male privilege in society is vital to creating a society that values all members as equal, I think all of us -- women and men -- must recognize our faults and actions do NOT end with our gender. Thank you for reminding us the actions we need to take as feminists to create a better society (and a better community on this website).
When we feminists start to take down each other and exclude and demean people -- men, trans people, people of color, other women who do not themselves as feminists, etc. -- we destroy allies and break up a community which must stand together to remember that equality spreads beyond women and into all of society.
Indeed, it's a good post for anyone with privilege who wants to be a good ally to people who lack that privilege.
Agreed. This post is a great primer on how to purge some of the more obnoxious trappings of privilege. Great job, Marc.
A very good point. I'm def going to re-read this again with a able bodied, white, young, middle class, heterosexual viewpoint in mind.
I take issue with number six. I often have found that a better way to empathize and relate to others is precisely to avoid putting oneself in another's shoes and presuming to know how others feel. It is a splendid paradox that often by letting go of the notion that we can feel the pain of others and tell them that 'we know how how they feel' and that 'we understand what they're going through' that we become all the more empathetic and understanding.
I agree with this completely. In general, often, as a privileged person you simply have no frame of reference for how a minority person feels. Trying to empathise often involves taking your feelings from completely incomparable or even trivial situations and projecting them onto systemic discrimination. This is where we get "a black girl called me a bitch once so I know what racism feels like!" or "a girl groped me in a bar once so I know what living in constant fear of sexual harrassment, assault and rape feels like!" from.
Empathy has its place, but it can be a very dangerous thing when misapplied in minority situations. I think that for one of the disabilities I have a huge amount of the prejudice around it actually comes from attempts at empathy where it's completely inappropriate. Sometimes the most respectful thing you can do is to say "No, I *don't* know what that feels like and probably never will."
Four: Give up your male privilege. [...] Unlike women, most of us have never faced the challenges of denied access, and when we are turned away by certain sects of feminism, the answer isn't to get upset, but to find other avenues that we are welcomed in, and can help. We don't deserve anything, other than being treated like human beings; and as human beings, we each have our own privileges, so there's no pouting when a less privileged group denies us access.
I'd like to second this point, especially. When our egos -- male, or straight, or white, or upper-(middle-)class, or American, or... -- get bruised or called out, we tend to be on the lookout for any exclusion that might smack of "oh, well, look at them talk, they exclude me, they look after their own, too."
But a lot of exclusion is simply a means of forming a healthy base. If certain groups will be the stronger for excluding men (for a time, or for forever), then it's our duty as male feminists and feminist allies to step down. The feminist movement in the early 18th and 19th centuries was hardly universally-inclusive: it was split along religions, classes, races, nationalities, regions, etc. They began this way in order to provide safe spaces for certain discussions; later, when healthy and strong, they slowly integrated into larger movements. But feminism is perhaps always a confederation, rather than a flat democracy.
Male feminists are lucky because there are plenty of openings and opportunities for them in the movement. (I imagine that there have always been such openings) But we also need to recognize that sometimes accepting some exclusion and guiding ourselves to where we are needed is itself a form of activism.
I agree with that SO much! One of my biggest peeves as a feminist, is when you're trying to have a discussion about say, rape or domestic violence, and a man (and yes, it's always been a man in my experience so far) pipes up, "Well men get raped/battered as well!". DUH. I KNOW that - I've done my reading. However, I'm talking about WOMEN'S experience, which still by far makes up the majority of rape/DV cases. Can I please be allowed to continue?
Some men seem to have a real hard time letting women talk about women's experiences, and feel they have to chip in and inject 'a male perspective', which seems to mean ignoring women's experience and making it all about men. Yawn. I'm never sure if this is because they feel uncomfortable acknowledging the horrors of violence against women, or they just can't stand not to have a conversation that's all about them. Either way, it pisses me right off and it's great to see men recognising this tendency and bucking the trend. Well done Marc!
Fine, sure. But whenever one talks about violent murder, don't you even think about bringing women or even a female victim into the discussion. And when we discuss the issue of suicide- man, don't you even dare even mention women. DUH. I KNOW women are affected by this, but men still make up by FAR the majority of VC victims and suicides.
^ troll.
Okay, I don't think you're a troll because you really seem to be expressing an interest in being a feminist. But please understand that the way you are expressing it isn't being helpful to feminism in general or to male feminists, for whom you seem to be advocating. I don't disagree with all of your points, but many of them are stemming from a privileged point of view and are hurting some real activists on this blog. You are stumbling, as the OP puts it. And trust me, we all do sometimes.
I'm going to go ahead and suggest, if you really want to pursue feminism, and I hope you do, that you take a break from this thread and peruse both feminism 101 (http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/) and xy online (http://www.xyonline.net/). Feminism 101 really helps clarify some sticky traps, and XY online is an inimitable support for male feminists. Please use these resources for clarifying or improving your argument.
Good call on xyonline! It's one of the better sites for information male feminists could use, from both a political perspective and the personal, having to do with power, pornography use and everything between. I used to actually think that site was a bunch of nonsense in my shithead feminist days (not to say that I am no longer a shithead sometimes), and it helped a lot.
Thanks for not writing him off. I know that, sometimes, it's said that it's not women's jobs to teach us about feminism, and that we ought to learn on our own, but it is our duties as men to actually listen to other men who have an interest in feminism, but do not see feminist activism from a theoretical perspective yet. :)
Sometimes, the difference between having a man completely write off the movement or becoming a great ally within it is the time and patience devoted to talking to them and actually treating them as having genuine concerns and wanting to learn, rather than just trolls and those wanting to disturb our movement.
Marc
See, I'm really not interested in the support and education of male feminists, particularly ones with that domineering a tone. I used to be, but that was when I was optimistic about feminism and recruiting everyone to the cause seemed like a great idea. Now I feel like I'm recruiting people to a cause that I have massive issues with and really lost faith in. So in a sense, I guess these threads don't apply to me at all.
For the record, I was being sarcastic in my post about VC and suicides. But the thing is, I DON'T see a lot of discussions specifically about female DV victims. I see many discussions advocated as general domestic violence... and then when someone brings a male victim into the discussion, all the feminists freak out about ratios, percents, etc. Well, yeah, 95%-odd DV cases are against woman. But if you are going to hold a general discussion about DV, you still have to be welcoming to the other 5%.
I'll check out your links, dangerfield- thanks. Though again, I disagree that I am exercising any kind of privilege. And I don't believe I'm a shithead, either.
Ahem. I think you may have just proved my point for me there. I was saying how frustrating it is, when, in a culture where the norm is still all too often assumed to be male experience, males refuse to let a discussion about female experience go by without wanting to pull the conversation back to being about men.
And then you jumped in, and, in a sarcastic and aggressive way, insisted we all turn and look at male experience again. Hmmm.
No, feminism doesn't mean looking at all female experiences to the exclusion of men's. What it does mean, and what this site is about, is finding an arena in which we can redress some of the balance whereby women's experiences are still sidelined and 'othered' whilst men's experiences take centre stage. You seem to have taken the bait by insisting we talk about a 'male problem', such as suicide or homicide, to the exclusion of women. I don't mind if you want to talk about those problems and point out that they mostly happen to men, and that as a man that concerns you. I'm not going to jump in and paranoidly yell 'It happens to women too!' because I don't take those statistics as an attack on my gender or an attempt to wield patriarchy. Unfortunately, many men seem to interpret conversations about DV or rape as an attempt to embarrass, do down, or imply a conspiracy by men against women, and sabotage them. Just like you sabotaged me.
If you can't see that your privilege as a man means that your experience is already seen as the default, and that you therefore have no need to fight to get your voice heard, and no need to ask other people to sometimes pipe the hell down, then perhaps you're on the wrong site?
I WAS KIDDING ABOUT VC AND SUICIDE!! Of course I don't think we should exclude female victims. I was responded is a satirical way to an earlier post at complained about how male victims are "always" brought into discussions about DV. Well, yeah. Because there *are* male victims. Not many, to be sure, but they exist. I'm not saying that the discussion needs to be "pulled back" to men. It just shouldn't be automatically expected that it will be all about women and that anyone who thinks otherwise is antifeminist. If you want to have such a discussion (about female DV), you need to put a disclaimer on the OP.
I'm going to stop feeding the troll. I wish HFeld all the best with their quest to be a male feminist.
Haha, okay. So essentially you're tired of the argument- fair enough, I am too. But there's no need to call me a troll when I clearly am not. Maybe you should read Celphi's reply to Thinker- seems to apply to you as well. Dismissing a view rather than responding to it is pathetic and a poor way to convince others to your way of thinking. You know, I don't want to generalize, but I see think a lot with feminists. You claim to want to have a discussion with those who may disagree. But as soon as someone (ie me) follows a debate *through to the end*, you dismiss me as a "troll" and leave.
If you don't want to debate anymore, just say so, and we can agree to disagree without all the name-calling.
Wicked awesome post. Very well written.
This comment has been deleted.
Pssst...victimhood as a state of being describes people who sit still and don't do anything. Sharing experiences and activist ideas is pretty much the opposite of being a victim.
What you're doing is called dismissing a view rather than refuting or even critiquing it. Dismissing views without refutation or critique is an extremely efficient means of rejecting them, since it cuts out the need for thought or analysis. Some people mistake their dismissal as thoughtful because they accompany their dismissal with a little fortune cookie "deep thought", along with an attitude of intellectual superiority. Since your handle is "Thinker" and you seem therefore interested in handling real live thinking, I thought I ought to alert you to the fact that you've unfortunately got some intellectual laziness masquerading as thinking. I hope you manage to replace it with the real thing.
I agree with most of this, being a male feminist who is far from perfect as well.
But I think that sometimes feminists over exaggerate how much influence males have on other males.
I for one have never had too many friends and have never been to charismatic, so I really can't do all that much when it comes to changing the attitudes of other men.
Ace - I think we have a lot of power to influence. Tbe key is about approach. I find my male friends who act other-than-feminists and men, in general, respond a lot better when I approach them as people, rather than screaming and yelling at them.
One of my close friends liked to use the term "bitch" a lot to describe women - and so in sitting around, I just asked him why he feels like referring to women as "bitches," and what it meant, and now, I think it's helped him think about how he sees women.
I think my exact phrase to him was "Have you ever thought about why you refer to them as bitches?"
Now, everytime he accidently uses the phrases, he'll grin sheepishly and say, "Ummm, yeah, and I didn't think about it."
Point is, no one needs to be a politician and speak like one or have the charisma of one to get feminist points across. We just have to approach things the way people respond best.
Every moment, I think, is a teachable moment, not just among our friends, but also with children.
Sending this to my boyfriend :)
Don't expect a cookie = One of the first and probably most important lessons for me too.
But right now I am going crazy trying to find a community, any community, of pro-feminist men that function as a support network. I have some nasty shit to work through and I am kind of reaching a point of desperation with this.
So... Anyone reading this know of some good and active online communities that are explicitly feminist, and function as support networks for men doing personal work to be better allies?
try www.xyonline.net
Also, nomas.org, It's the National Organization for Men Against Sexism, and will actually have a conference in October, I do believe, to gather pro-feminists men together and talk about issues of violence and what we can do to help. It'll be in Oregon. You should come! I'll actually be flying home to attend it!
On campus, perhaps the best way to bring together like-minded men is by starting a pro-feminist organization. Check out mystrength.org. It's an anti-violence/sexual assault organization that brings pro-feminist men together. Perhaps by starting the group, you'll be able to bring in many men like yourself, who are looking to work within feminism!
If you have any questions about starting various groups, let me know. If I can't answer, there are other men I look to who definitely will be able to answer.
Good luck!
Sorry all, trolls have been banned!
Marc...
What should one make of Michael Flood's significant presence in the Australian government's report into violence against women.
Why is it that the feminist perspective assumes that I, a young white male, have privelege. If this privelege exists I want in on it. I have never expierienced this privelege in my entire life. All men of my age are treated better than me and have always been marginilised. And don't give me that crap that women don't have privilege, every woman I have known gets considerably better treatment than I do. And they believe in showing this off whenever I am in there presence and reminding of the fact that I am not equal to them.
There is a problem where privilege is talked about in binary terms (something you have, or don't), when it's really more like a model that's more or less appropriate to a situation (or if you prefer, exists on a continuum, so some of us are more privileged than others).
And it depends quite strongly on your cultural context. As a white man living in anglophone North America, I'll say unreservedly being white is a very high privilege position. It's rarely ever a drawback, often an advantage, and I don't think any other racial background would put me in a better position (though this depends very slightly on my priorities, for almost all sets of priorities, it's advantageous. Your kilometerage may vary, however.) I'm aware of once where being white has significantly handicapped me, and there might be a handful of times I'm unaware of. That, however, compares pretty favourably with how often my race'd be a handicap if I were any other racial background. (I'd probably be better off if I was from a wealthy WASP-y background, rather than dirt-farming Celts, but I digress)
Being male is more complicated, of course. In many ways it's advantageous, and in many ways its a handicap. More to the point, both men and women are more aware of their own mistreatment than the mistreatment of others, so there's some "greener on the other side" going on, of course. You're more aware of the chilly reception you get at the knitting shop than the chilly (or creepily warm) reception women get at the (I dunno?) gun shop. You're more aware of your difficulty in being liked or trusted than you are of women's difficulty in being feared or respected. You're more aware of your inability to ask for help because it's a show of weakness than women's inability to ask for help for fear of not being taken seriously.
The main point, of course, is that it doesn't matter anyways. The ethically correct way to treat women doesn't depend on how you treat men (and vice versa). One can separate feminist theory of men's experiences (which is, of course, likely to be incompatible with your experiences of what it's like to be a man), and feminist doctrine of how women should be treated (which, of course, doesn't really depend on what men's experiences are at all.)
I'm not going to jump in and paranoidly yell 'It happens to women too!' because I don't take those statistics as an attack on my gender or an attempt to wield patriarchy. Unfortunately, many men seem to interpret conversations about DV or rape as an attempt to embarrass, do down, or imply a conspiracy by men against women, and sabotage them. Just like you sabotaged me.GED | Online High School Diploma | High School Diploma
As a woman I absolutely love the author of this post! I wish all men were like you - then the world will be happier and women wouldn't have all those negative traits that men usually accuse them of.
I just don't agree with Brian who says that being a man is more complicated. Come on - we can do the same things that you do. We live in the same society, get our high school diploma in a traditional or even contemporary online high school... And we can also give birth to a baby!!!!