What is the role of men in feminism?

[trotsky]

Webster's first definition for feminism says:

the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes

As a man, that's how I understand feminism. It's fundamentally about equality of the sexes. In an ideal society, women and men should be equally free to choose whatever profession they want (and get paid the same for the same work!), equally free to exhibit whatever sexual preference they feel, and equally free to act in whatever "feminine"/"masculine" ways they wish, without condemnation or judgment from others.

And so, from my perspective, there's a lot to be gained (for both sexes) in discussions about the unfair ways women are treated by listening to men describe how even within the patriarchal power structure certain men are discriminated against and belittled.

Getting input from men about how sexually/physically-oriented discrimination affects them too should strengthen the feminism movement, not weaken it or belittle it, and certainly not detract from it. Think of all the men affected by this kind of discrimination who could be brought into feminism, expanding it and making it more able to affect REAL change!

If you don't think this is not appropriate, please tell me why. I'd really like to know.

[efhmc]

1. Input of a thoughtful, open and egalitarian nature is always helpful to

any discussion. I feel that real equality of the sexes would very positively impact men and children and animals and the environment.

[trotsky]

3. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Thanks.

[trotsky]

2. Oops, past the editing time... please excuse the double negative. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

4. to shut up and listen......

:)

No, I think it is to first recognize there are problems, show compassion, and take the time to seriously learn about these problems from a woman's POV and an intellectual POV. As I am learning, it isn't enough to show empathy, you can't just run in like a bull in a china shop espousing women's rights and expect to do good. You need to know about the issue(s), study them and work towards viable solutions. A woman's input and advice is essential. I can come up with lots of ideas on my own that I may think are helpful, yet women may think they don't get to the whole problem.

From there, a man needs to work towards an honest debate and pursue egalitarian goals for a society. It is not about one group being stronger than another, it's about two equal parts being stronger than one.

[alarcojon]

8. Well put, Wetzelbill

and just to amplify a little: we men are socialized to "take charge" and "solve the problem." It is easy for us to be well-meaning yet still come in as if we were the knight in shining armor who is going to solve all the problems women face today. We have to be very careful not to do that.

However, we DO have a different perspective which can be helpful in these discussions, a perspective born of our profoundly different socialization. As long as we do not try to hijack the discussion, I think we can play a meaningful role in achieving gender equality.

And coming at it from another angle, sexism cannot end until men end the discrimination, belittling, and domestic and physical abuse we as a group continue to inflict on women. We need to do our part to change these demons within ourselves and within other men.

[Wetzelbill]

36. thank you and the same to you

I think a key point lies in not hijacking the discussion as you said.

The problem is, and I think this is why Eloriel has reacted so passionately, is the OP, was talking about seeing things from a male perspective. I know he didn't mean that it should start from a male pov, but it can come off male-centric like that. I was only kidding about the "shut up and listen" part, but in a nutshell, that's how we have to start. It really pisses some women off when a guy starts talking about himself with regards to discrimination, many don't care to hear a guy's personal experiences. It is a side of the debate, but is one that has to wait until women become comfortable with what you are doing for the bigger part of discrimination - which is against females - and not concerned with the male sect of it. It is important, no doubt, but if you start by talking about male discrimination to women who have been hurt by men and don't trust men in the first place, then you might be setting yourself up for some trouble.

Good point about sexism cannot end until men end the discriminating and so forth. That in itself wouldn't be a bad vantage point to start the discussion off with either.

[Eloriel]

5. Here's my problem with what you've written

Theoretically, and ideally, what you've said is true.

But in reality, IN PRACTICE, it's problematic and in fact it makes me furious to even have to point out the flaw. Again.

And so, from my perspective, there's a lot to be gained (for both sexes) in discussions about the unfair ways women are treated by listening to men describe how even within the patriarchal power structure certain men are discriminated against and belittled.

Getting input from men about how sexually/physically-oriented discrimination affects them too should strengthen the feminism movement, not weaken it or belittle it, and certainly not detract from it. Think of all the men affected by this kind of discrimination who could be brought into feminism, expanding it and making it more able to affect REAL change!

You see, the problem is twofold. First, women are SO behind in every category you can name, that most of the "work" MUST be about equalizing things for them. I said: MOST of the work.

Second, and this is the part I find so annoying and troublesome, one way men belittle, demean and trivialize women's concerns and problems is to say, "But men have it tough too," or "But it happens to men too," and "men are victims too."

Well, yeah. Men are victims too, but men are the ones who also BENEFIT from the much greater victimization of women -- again, in every damned category you can name. You won't find a single thread on DU's main forums (GD, LBN, GDP) where violence against women is the topic without the plaintive cry, "But men are victims too." Yeah, 5% of the time, men are victims too, and often those incidents are due to women physically trying to protect and defend themselves.

Rape. "But women lie and bring false charges," (which I'm sure you can figure out makes MEN the victims, once again, in these discussions). Uh, no. There is no greater incidence of false rape accusations than false allegations in any OTHER kind of crime -- under 2%. (Same with children's reports of sexual abuse, btw, just in case you're ever in a position to believe or disbelieve a child -- UNDER 2%, a figure nearly negligible.)

These complaints and whines and whimpers from men, including what you're proposing a little less inflammatorily, most certainly DOES detract from what is needed to bring women to full equality. It absolutely does. For one thing, a discussion like this is requiring my time and energy, isn't it? In threads on DU, a LOT of energy gets deflected into trying to counter the mean-spirited mythology and lies (and that IS the point of these tactics, after all, whether the men using them understand it or not: to deflect from the truth and especially to deflect blame from accruing to the perps, who happen to be overwhelmingly male).

The other piece is that the weak little, puny egos of all these MEN who just can't stand women-only-issues to get a little attention, while they get NONE. Makes me wanna :puke:

Now I want you to think about something. How do you think Stokely Carmichael and Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X, would have reacted to the suggestion that white men don't have it all that easy either? You think that's an argument that would fly with any of them? (In actuality, MLK Jr might have been able to make something of it, and in fact there's some evidence that when he started going after poverty as an issue, aside from just civil rights, is the point at which he had to be eliminated. But that doesn't really lessen my point.)

Now, having said all that, and between us gotten my adrenalin going lickety split, there is ONE WORD in your post that I've been thinking about myself lately, and I do think it's a potentially unifying concept for both sexes and all colors IF we could pull off a gigantic educational campaign (doubtful on its face): PATRIARCHY. Patriarchy is the enemy of all of us, bar none. Patriachy enslaves, and men are not exempt. Patriarchy lives and thrives, and ALL of us are supporting it in a gazillion ways daily, even while we are being further enslaved by it.

I could join you in an anti-Patriarchy campaign. AND, sadly, I think that's the only way to wake most men up to sexism, and homophobia, different-ableism, racism and classism as well. We are ALL victims of Patriarchy, all of us.

But don't EVER bring up to me the difficulty men have in any disucssion about women's problems, not when women are dying -- literally dying -- at the rate of SEVERAL A DAY in the US alone at the hands of the very men who claim to love them.

Sorry, but that's as "objective" and "reasonable" and "non-hysterical" as I can bring myself to be on this subject.

One more thing. I would point out that the rules for Groups are that posters to the Groups have to buy into the mission statement for the group. You might want to read (or re-read) our mission statement, for future reference: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x1

[Finder]

6. I think he has a point...

our minority brothers and our gay brothers are needed in the movement since many of them do experience a lot of discrimination of the type we are fighting against. Our movement is about equality for all.

Not too long ago, the feminist movement excluded lesbians and even today transexuals are often made to feel unwelcome--that is wrong. I do agree with you about Patriarchy being the problem but most interpret a fight against patriarchy to be a fight for matriarchy and that is where we lose support.

Hope I made sense.

[Eloriel]

11. I think you didn't read my post

with much attention or comprehension. Wanna go back and try again?

Or not, doesn't matter to me.

[trotsky]

7. I think you're distorting what I'm trying to say.

In no way do I intend, by pointing out how SOME men can suffer too, to any way "belittle, demean and trivialize women's concerns and problems".

Similarly, I think it's an unfair comparison to ask how the civil rights leaders would act when confronted with "white men don't have it all that easy either."

I didn't say that.

I just don't think the attitude of, "Shut up, we don't need to hear about how the social structure that causes problems for women causes problems for some men, too" is going to help feminism in the long run. If the same machine is responsible for both, why not attack the machine instead of its product?

To be quite frank, I felt attacked by your post, when I'm just here to listen and offer a perspective.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wetzelbill]

34. I may be wrong but what I think she is getting at is......

It may be fine to include any repression that men have been subjected to in the debate, but sometimes when we (men) get into the discussion we want to talk about ourselves. Even if it is well meaning, we still try to correlate something from our view. It is much more important for a man to look at it from a woman's pov.

To start from a man's view is to equalize the experiences of both men and women in this. And, frankly, it isn't an equal issue at all. Men can point out any discrimination we've experienced sure. But, by far and away, virtually all of the dicrimination happens toward women. In all honesty, we don't really tell women anything they haven't already felt themselves with regards to discrimination. And, probably felt a million times more than we ever have. What is important, with regards to the way a man has felt discrimination, is to not equate our suffering to a woman's, but to take the empathy and compassion that you have and work towards rectifying the problem. You need to be wary, as do I, Alarcoeg and other men, that often women have suffered so much pain and anquish, and been hurt so badly on these issues, that it only hurts them more when a man tries to equate male discrimination on the same level of female discrimination. Which, you didn't mean to do, but when you want to start a debate of ideas from a man's point of view, you essentially are riding a pretty fine line with doing so.

I know how you feel, for different reasons I felt I was getting attacked on another thread earlier today myself. It can make a man feel defensive, that you can't seem to say anything right. I would advise you to keep in mind that these women take all of these issues to heart. Sometimes they are so passionate about their side of the issue, that something you may say or do, however well meaning it might be, can ignite that passion.

Most of the work has to be done on the woman's side of the equation, to begin a discussion from another point of view, isn't the proper way to go about it. From there, once everything begins to develop, then a woman will seek out your pov and you can begin getting into the ideas you were talking about. But, we don't start out on this issue on equal footing. Not by a long shot.

[Eloriel]

78. Perfectly stated. Thank you.

IMO, any male who comes to this forum WITHOUT this fundamental understanding is off on the wrong foot pretty much permanently. This post ought to be tacked up at the top of this forum permanently, IMO. Or perhaps modified to be made part of the Mission Statement. (Just fantasizing.)

Thanks.

[Wetzelbill]

83. You're welcome

I'm glad I have your respect, you certainly have mine.

[alarcojon]

10. Eloriel, I respect your posts a great deal, but

I think you were too harsh on Trotsky. I do understand what you're saying, and it is a problem many of us men have. I see it in GD and the Lounge all the time.

I can't speak for Trotsky, but I think it IS valuable to feminism to include in the discussion the ways men are harmed by patriarchy. Not in some bullshit "men's rights" or "women cry rape" sort of way, and certainly not in an attempt to get "equal time" as victims.

As I see it, patriarchy stunts our (men's) development as full human beings. Our entitlement dehumanizes us - as a crude analogy, think about how war dehumanizes the soldiers who are killing and raping the enemy they have been brainwashed to hate. This dehumanization takes a toll on us. I am not comparing that to the effects of patriarchy on women, which as you point out is of another order, but I think it is something we men have to come to terms with and deal with (with a healthy dose of help and understanding from our feminist sisters ;)) as part of humanity's mission to end sexism.

[Eloriel]

13. Read my damn post again

What IS it with you people? I re-read it myself and it's plain as day. I've WORKED as a writer, I absolutely CAN make myself clear, and I did a reasonably good job of it for quick-and-spontaneous medium which is a discussion forum. I'm not always as articulate as I'd like to be, and there are times when I am not all that clear -- but this isn't really one of them. READ THE DAMN POST.

[alarcojon]

14. I read it. Did you read mine?

We're all adults here.

[Eloriel]

16. Yes, I read yours -- several times

And you have demonstrated no clear indication whatsoever that you understood what I wrote at all:

Eloriel, I respect your posts a great deal, but

I think you were too harsh on Trotsky. I do understand what you're saying, and it is a problem many of us men have. I see it in GD and the Lounge all the time.

I can't speak for Trotsky, but I think it IS valuable to feminism to include in the discussion the ways men are harmed by patriarchy.

That's all the farther I need to read (tho I have, and repeatedly now, read the entire post), because THIS bolded comment demonstrates conclusively an absolute and fundamental MISunderstanding or MISconstruction of my post or (who knows?) perhaps simply a cantankerous, contrarian bent that makes you want to argue when the point you're making is one that I've already made myself.

Let me explain something else to you: sexism is PART of Patriarchy, but by no means the whole thing. You (and probably trotsky) are conflating the two in a way I think is potentially problematic. Sexism is a SUBSET of Patriarchy, an important one and possibly even THE key subset, but when you say "patriarchy," you're talking about more than just sexism, and when you say sexism, it's not an exact synonym for patriarchy. It would be helpful if you stop conflating the two.

AFAIC -- and speaking for myself only -- if you want to be a productive part of this GROUP (and not catch flak from me), you'll read women's posts with much more care than you'e so far demonstrated, tuck your male-ego-kneejerk-defensiveness into an alabaster jar on the mantle or something, and understand that as bad as men have it under Patriarchy (and they do), THIS isn't a forum about PATRIARCHY per se and poor men's poor little lot in life, but about FEMINISM and FEMINISTS -- again, that certain and distinct subset of Patriarchy.

*I* don't want to hear about how bad men have it -- not here. I just don't. And I think it's unbelievably arrogant and male-centric (and yes, sexist) for the two of you to insist on inserting that discussion into this Group.

And in fact, to get me to give a damn about men's lot in life under Patriarchy or anything else, you and trotsky and probably a lot of other men are going to have to demonstrate a commitment to fixing how bad things are for WOMEN first. And then we'll talk.

So go start a thread somewhere else in DU if you're sincere about having that discussion about how much feminism can benefit from MEN'S experiences, because at this point I'm suspecting that we've got several men now who've wandered in here pretending to be sympatico, but oops!! once again they're pulling their same, standard old tricks.

And your inability -- or unwillingness -- to read and/or comprehend MY remarks, your unwillingness or inability to have ANY understanding of where I'm coming from, simply demonstrates to me you HAVE no real understanding of women's issues and care about them even less. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE ON THIS GROUP FORUM.

If you think I'm wrong -- great, then PROVE I'm wrong, but do so by your actions and words, not your defensive arguments about it, and about how "unfair" I am to you or trotsky or anyone. I don't want to HEAR what you've got to say for yourself, I want to SEE your commitment to women's issues first and foremost. That's what this forum is for and about, not how men are harmed by patriarchy, even tho they are.

[Finder]

17. Eloriel, we are a group here...

and frankly, you do not speak for a lot of us.

This statement of yours is all about you:
"And your inability -- or unwillingness -- to read and/or comprehend MY remarks, your unwillingness or inability to have ANY understanding of where I'm coming from, simply demonstrates to me you HAVE no real understanding of women's issues and care about them even less. THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE ON THIS GROUP FORUM."

This is not an ELORIEL-centric group nor is it your place to judge who belongs in the forum or not.

[Eloriel]

18. Who died and left you queen?

It's not your place to lecture me. I made it quite clear that I was speaking for myself. I said so outright. Must I append that language to EVERY paragraph to satisfy you?

I absolutely reserve the right to speak about what *I* consider appropriate in this forum in consonance with MY understanding of the group mission statement. I don't need your permission for that, no matter how strenuously you may disagree. In very large part, that's what feminism is all about: having every right to speak my truth and stepping forward to do so. And no, you don't have to like it -- or agree.

In fact, to my knowledge, we don't agree about anything, do we? At least I can't recall anything I've ever seen you post that I agreed thoroughly with, and a lot I disagreed with rather vehemently, but increasingly choose to just ignore. So when you admonish me that "WE are a group here," -- uh, no, WE are not. YOU and others may be; I and others may be. But you and I are NOT. And probably never will be.

So, no surprise you were able to find something to attack about what I said. The only surprise is that it wasn't more substantive.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

20. Ouch

You're personalizing, and Finder simply commented on your tone. I'm not sure anyone is served by this sort of distorted processing.

I always trust people to read what I wrote. Questioning them about their reading comprehension is hardly on topic, and, yes, is rude.

[Eloriel]

21. There is absolutely nothing in that post you're responding to about her

reading comprehension. Not one word.

And I usually trust that people will read what I've written too -- until they demonstrate otherwise.

This is not about tone (and is pretty personal, AFAIC):

and frankly, you do not speak for a lot of us.

Nor this:
This statement of yours is all about you:

Nor this:
This is not an ELORIEL-centric group nor is it your place to judge who belongs in the forum or not.

Judgment isn't "tone." Here's a definition for you:

Manner of expression in speech or writing: took an angry tone with the reporters.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tone

Tone is style, not content.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. No, tone is all

I'm sorry you took it so badly. I extend a hand.

[Eloriel]

26. Tone is all - ah, but that wasn't your argument

Actually, I pretty much have to agree with that. Tone is exrtremely important, and often carries more information than the denotation of the words actually used.

But again, that wasn't what you said. You said Finder was objecting to my TONE, and she was doing nothing of the sort. Now, she may indeed be objecting to my tone -- if so, she hasn't said so. Her complaints were about ny authority and right to post what, or her perception of it. Way different matters.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. I said "Tone is all"

I extended my hand to you.

There are differences in perception and processes. That's all. Things end.

But, sadly, the OP was overlooked in this tangent. There are some fine responses to what trotsky brought up, a most compelling and provocative inquiry that is, I think, a fertile ground for much good discussion.

Thanks, trotsky.

[Finder]

22. I wasn't attacking you.

But I do think you were attacking a couple of other posters and wanted to speak up. You also lectured me upstream about comprehension. Even in the most recent post you stressed divisiveness rather than unity.

You wrote:
"So when you admonish me that "WE are a group here," -- uh, no, WE are not. YOU and others may be; I and others may be. But you and I are NOT. And probably never will be."

A house divided, cannot stand.

[Eloriel]

27. Oh, Finder,

when you demonstrate unity or sisterhood or anything approaching it, by all means please come talk to me about MY "divisiveness." I have felt nothing BUT a very personal form of antagonism from you from the time I first encountered you here on this forum. Unfortunately, I also vaguely remember taking strong issue early on with something or several somethings you said which seems to have either set the tone and direction of our non-relationship or foreshadowed it.

I can't imagine you feel any more charitably toward me. I've just decided we are two people who simply get on one another's nerves. :shrug: It happens.

But please don't imagine I'm the only sinner between the two of us. I'll take 50% blame, not much more.

[Finder]

29. Well I have no animosity towards you...

and our debates are just that--debates. I don't recall us ever having a falling out so I am not sure what you are referring to as far as setting the tone.

My posts in this thread were in defense of a couple of posters I felt/perceived you being antagonistic towards.

[lukasahero]

38. In Eloriel's defense

some of us remember who we are speaking to in other threads, as I'm sure she has remembered this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3763204

[Eloriel]

79. O.M.G. Thanks for posting that

I had forgotten that abortion of a discussion...I am SO glad you brought it to my attention again. Thanks.

[Wetzelbill]

35. Finder and Eloriel, you are my two best friends in this forum.....

You both have different approaches to feminism, it isn't my place to try to elaborate on that. Nor do I know enough about it all to even try to do so anyway. I certainly don't know anything about your lives or anything to jump in and tell a feminist how she should approach anything. Personally, I think you are both wonderful, intelligent women, you both made me feel at home here, even when I was made to feel defensive myself by others. I think, you both are misreading each other. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I'd like to see you reconcile and work things out. From looking at previous threads and all, I see some history here, and I think much of it could have been taken differently. Maybe you can both take a step back in the future and be more pragmatic with each other? I don't know what else to add, but that's my two cents. Uh...please don't hurt me. (that comment almost got me killed earlier today, why do I push my luck so?) :) :grouphug:

[alarcojon]

30. Let's see here...

1) I start off by praising other posts I've seen of yours (not in this forum, but elsewhere)

2) I emphasize that I'm NOT asking for equal time as victims.

3) I even demonstrated that I read your post - see for example the words which as you point out when I'm agreeing with you.

4) I get back:

i) the insinuation that I cannot or will not comprehend your post. Read this very carefully: I am fully confident that my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are at least on a par with yours. No "flak" from you will change that.

ii) an accusation of a "male-ego-knee-jerk defensiveness"

iii) a direct charge of sexism.

iv) ample insinuation that I have not done enough in my life to please you as far as helping fix things for women. How you have come to know what I have done in my life, I can only wonder. Suffice it to say I feel no need to justify my commitment to women's rights to you.

v) not only an accusation that I have no understanding of women's issues, but a baseless charge that I care about them even less.

Your point about conflating sexism and patriarchy is well taken, but is unfortunately so coated in bile, personal attack, and baseless accusation, that it almost gets lost.

If you think trotsky's post doesn't belong in this forum, why don't you ask the admins to censor (oops, scrub that) lock it. I see you've already met them a ways up.

I will post wherever I please, and will take the flak if I deserve it, even from you. If at some point the rest of the group feels I have nothing to contribute, I promise I will leave. Feel free to bookmark that and throw it back at me if you wish.

I have never been intimidated by rants like I see from you. Nor do they impress me very much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have spent more time on you than is warranted, given the asymmetrical nature of our exchange. Don't expect me to dignify any further rants from you with a response.

[lukasahero]

40. Again in Eloriel's defense, I refer everyone to the rules of THIS group

"The purpose of the DU Feminists Group is to provide a safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential.

We believe that women do not start on the same rung as men on the ladder of success; that misogyny and sexism do indeed exist in America circa 2005; and that the progress made for women's rights is being seriously and immediately threatened by this administration.

The goal of this group is to understand the problems (and how they affect women), identify the myriad causes (and how they can limit a woman's vision and opportunity) and propose solutions (and how we can bring those solutions in a meaningful way out into the greater community).

About this Group

- This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

- If, for example, you believe that women have already achieved "full participation in the mainstream of American society..., exercising all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men... in all aspects of citizenship, public service, employment, education, and family life,"* then this is not the group for you.

- If, for example, you believe that women who have concerns about the prevalance of pornography in our society are uptight, sexually-repressed prudes who need to be enlightened to the "facts" and "realities" of the sex industry, this is not the group for you.

- The terms "feminist/feminism" and "misogyny" have established meanings in the context of women's history. While terminology may be debated, the denigration of these relevant terms will not be allowed.

- Attempts to minimize or dismiss women and/or the issues being discussed are not welcome.

- Like-minded DUers of all genders are encouraged to participate."

I will refrain from getting too (femininely) passionate about why this post has likely upset Eloriel and remain (masculinely) calm in my explanation. Yes, how patriarchy hurts men should be discussed but the rules of this group specifically state that this group is not the place to discuss it.

The question, what is the role of men in feminism might have been greeted better had it focused more on how men can listen to women, hear their concerns and work to correct them rather than stating that the feminist movement can be aided "by listening to men describe how... certain men are discriminated against and belittled." The discussion of that condition most certainly should be had but not here.

Additionally the statement, "Think of all the men affected by this kind of discrimination who could be brought into feminism, expanding it and making it more able to affect REAL change!" is particularly offputting. Maybe instead these men could for a moment think of all the WOMEN affected by this kind of discrimination and be "brought into feminism" because it's the right thing to do not just because it will help them. I believe in "saving the whales" not because I personally gain anything from saving them but because it is the right thing to do. Why should women accept that men will only be interested in feminism if they gain by it? They already have all the gains.

And if anyone wants to suggest that I am acting out of turn by interpretting the rules and telling people what is and what isn't welcome posting here, please know that I understand the rules and the intentions behind them. I should. I wrote them. I wrote them with the input and advice from several women and one man and Eloriel was one of them. Not a single other poster to this thread was interested or involved in the formation of this group. That is not to suggest they shouldn't be posting here, but they shouldn't be telling Eloriel how to interpret the rules of this group either. She knows them. She wrote them.

[Ripley]

42. This Group is being poisoned.

Hi luc. I had to come back for this. I find the level of disruption in this Group unbelievable. While many important posts by feminists about feminists sink to page 3, I see a few men have decided to come in here like gangbusters spamming the board with how "nice" they are and how they want to help us. And of course, they have their fans, you know, the ones who agree with the disruptors, not the real feminists who are here.

Eloriel and Misunderestimator have made very valid points about what is going on here and it is not "man-bashing." Yet they are chided by certain others as being rude or inappropriate. Well, if feminists can't even come into their own group and discuss the issues without men coming in here trying to fill up the front page with their life stories and however unintentional, their condescending biases...

I guess they have won. They control the Lounge and other main forums and now they are trying to control this one. When females only make up 14% of the United States Congress, I want to scream and find a way to get more women into high office. I don't want to hear a man come into this group and tell me he "is passionate about feminist issues and wants to help me by getting into office." We don't need any more men in office. America ranks 61st for women's involvement in national legislatures and governments...Rwanda and Iraq are ahead of us for Fuck's Sake! If a man is seriously concerned about Feminist issues like this, he should find a good woman running for office and support her, like so many white people supported MLK. It is the height of paternalism for him to assume he knows best.

I thought I helped initiate this Group for a safe place to discuss issues openly and it would bring a lot of women back into DU who left because of the blatant sexism here. Yet, a handful of people who post nothing of substance, only vague cliches are allowed to spam this place and consistently spend the majority of their time finding ways to attack the real feminists. It is poison in here.

I'm so sorry it has turned out this way luc, but not at all surprised. Until there is a purge here, I don't see this group as being a safe place or productive for real discussions. It has become just like the rest of DU....having to spend too much energy defending oneself and fighting off the fake liberal equivocators.

[trotsky]

43. Don't worry.

I am sorry now that I even started this thread. Rest assured I won't be participating in this group anymore. I didn't want to stir things up, I really didn't. Just thought I would try to open a discussion and try to help. It backfired horribly.

[Ripley]

44. I wasn't speaking of purging you.

You are not an equivocator.

You asked if your post was inappropriate for us to tell you why. Yet when Eloriel and I explain why we find it so, you say you are leaving. Honestly, I think most of your posts in here have been fine. But it appears that whenever a feminist has a problem with some of the mens' posts, the whole gang of you comes on to say, in essence, she is being a bitch.

Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine a men's group where only 2 or 3 women came in and said the same things and reacted the same way. Oh wait, you could see that anywhere else on DU. Check out a rape thread, or a "bitch, cunt, whore" thread sometime.

I'm sorry but you do sound like you are stirring things up when you don't seem to comprehend the rules of the group or the things that have been said over and over here. Of course the Patriarchal system is bad for men too. But dammit, THIS IS NOT A GROUP DESIGNED TO DISCUSS MEN'S ISSUES.

This entire website is mostly from a mans POV. Why can't we have one sliver of the liberal site dedicated to a woman's POV? After all we are half of the god damned country.


Why is that so hard to understand?

[trotsky]

45. I just think there's a difference

between telling someone that something is inappropriate, and verbally beating them over the head. That is all.

[Ripley]

64. Okay.

I'll try to explain this. High anxiety exists for some of us. With good damn reason. Some of us are so used to being kicked in the teeth in the other forums we are a little PO'ed to see it creeping in here.

As I say downstream to two other posters....perhaps I misinterpreted intentions and words. However, with all due respect, please understand how the rest of DU treats some of us. If you don't believe me...maybe I should make a poll in GD. But I've seen them from time to time over the years and a LOT of women are sick of it.

I really get tired of seeing weakness on women's issues, just like seeing the weakness of so many issues in Washington by the Democrats. Acknowledging men would enjoy a better world if women weren't discriminated against is obvious, but frankly we need a place where women don't have to constantly think about how men feel about women's issues.

I'll say I'm sorry to you too if I misunderstand where you are coming from and I won't beat you over the head.

[lukasahero]

47. Trotsky, rather than quitting

if you ARE interested in women's issues, then why don't you try to listen and learn? Eloriel's initial post was not as vitriolic as it is being positioned. She made some excellent points which could illuminate for any man willing to listen to a woman's perspective what some women believe the role of men could be and how the positioning of your initial post could be interpretted to dismiss the concerns women have.

I don't agree with Ripley 100% (sorry Rip) that the men here are the problem and I believe your initial question was posted sincerely (albeit perhaps somewhat poorly - from the point of view of those of us who formed this group in an effort to escape this very positioning of men's rights into the women's rights and issues forum).

I do however agree with Ripley that this group is in danger of dismissing women's issues in favor of turning it into a human rights group. This is not the reason the group was formed and, while I agree that there is an issue there to be addressed, it is important that this group remain a place where women and men can talk specifically about women's issues.

We are not, and this is defined in the mission statement, here to defend that problems exist, as some here seem to be interested in having us do. We are not here to support that as long as one of us has "made it", then that's all other women have to do to overcome sexism, as others are interested in doing.

We are here to discuss problems that are inherent to women in society, to offer our perspective on where those issues originate and come up with ideas on how those issues can be resolved. Yes, men DO play a role in resolving the problem. However, maybe part of the problem is men trying to define what that role is rather than giving the women they contend they support enough credit to have their own ideas as to how men can help in that effort.

[Ripley]

49. Ah, you are so much more diplomatic than I.

Thanks for being so articulate.

I guess I wasn't clear...some of the worst disruptors here are not men, but call themselves women. Sorry if I offended all men.

I really am tired of the humanist meme and the cliche "we're all on the same side" or "we're in this together" or "here's how we get men on our side" etc.

Why do I have to be acquiescent to our "gay brothers" in a Feminist Group? Why do I have to tip toe around the men who claim "ignorance" in this group?

What do "bad boys" have to do with Feminists? I guess I just don't understand most of their posts here. If they honestly want to understand our perspective why do they always bring it back to men?

[Wetzelbill]

54. you didn't offend me at all

You were right on, in all honesty. You just referred to me twice, probably without being able to remember my name, so I answered you.

You don't have to be acqiescent or tip-toe around anybody. Nobody in here should have to tip-toe, be, it you or I, Luke or Trotsky.

Do you not understand any of my posts? I'd like you to reply to them and let me know of this as well. I only posted to introduce myself, in all honesty. The other things I posted, I was asked to do so or, in the case of the rape stats from GD, I felt pertained to the forum. Sometimes, I will be asked to post on a thread too. Some women send me PMs and ask me to post. So, I do my best...:)

Personally, I specifically, try not to bring it back to men, I sometimes will correlate a minority issue with it, but that's about it all.

To be honest, it's confusing around here. All you women are so intelligent, the discussion here is light years different then anywhere else. It's easy to make mistakes. I think I'm going to have a lower profile around here at any rate. Step back and take it all in. But, no, I don't think you are offensive at all, you're a straight-shooter and sometimes that doesn't come off right, but you know, don't change it.

[Ripley]

59. Okay.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you and your posts.

However, I would ask you to think about something. Would you post the same way in an AA or GLBT Group? Perhaps I'm touchy because I've been on DU a long time and witnessed excessive amounts of sexism and when women point this out they are very often ridiculed and told to lighten up. There is a long history of this and it was in one of my posts in the Women's rights forum that led to this Group finally being put together.

I appreciate your taking on the difficult task of running for office and I do appreciate you asking for input. But why do you always seem to throw in the "don't hurt me" and other remarks that pretty much negate all of the good you posted before hand. We've seen and heard it before. It just comes off as sounding like you are playing with women. I don't want you to be quiet, just more cognizant of how your words are taken by a lot of us.

Yes, maybe you did come on a little strong. If you had read the posts here it has been a pretty personal since it began. Women discussing their sex lives, their abuse and rape at the hands of men and all the other shit we have to put up with in life and here at DU. When you continually say "I'm a nice guy. I was homecoming King nominee. etc. etc." ... it just sounded phoney to me. Sorry if I misinterpreted your intentions.

Thanks for listening. Erm, reading.

[Wetzelbill]

65. ok...

To tell you the truth, I don't know if I would post like that in an AA or a GLBT group, because I am not in one, but I would say I probably would.

I have a different sort of sense of humor, where I'm from we all ruthlessly tease each other, plus, I'm a very humorous person. I come off a little wrong to people all the time, mainly they don't know what to think of me, but after maybe a few days of class or seeing me around a few times they "get" me a little more. So it's not that I intentionally throw in the "don't hurt me" stuff to negate everything on purpose, it's just that I'm a bit of a screwball. Since, some women find that offensive I will work on it though. But, I pretty much put humor into all aspects of my life, I'm just like that, I'll try to be more careful about it, but I hope you can all maybe take that into consideration as well. Maybe take it at face value, I guess. I'm not playing with women, not in that sense, I joke with women as much as anybody. It's sort of my way of telling somebody I like them. In person I'm very much the same way. But, I was incognizant of this when I first came here, and I'll work on that.

Phony? Oh, I assure you, I'm about as far from phony as it gets. When I explain stuff, sometimes I do throw in stuff like:"well I used to be an athlete" or "I had a book published two years ago" and it may come off different, but see, from an analytical standpoint, I best explain myself by equating things in my past or that I have done etc. I won't just walk up to someone introduce myself and say:" I was once a homecoming nominee." Yet, in the course of a discussion I may say something like that. I also suffer greatly from anxiety, so my humor and the way I equate certain things, often comes from nerves. I come off as a little brash, especially online where body language and so forth is not a factor - but what I'm really trying to do is to make myself comfortable and get people to like me. (btw, I was probably the nerdiest nominee ever, if that helps :) )

Honestly, I'm thinking we all are beginning to waste time here. Not as a whole, but often the issue of a thread will become tangent to our disagreements. I am mindful of what you said, I appreciate you replying to me and taking the discourse in this direction. You probably could have come at me po'ed pretty easily, but you didn't. Thank you for that. I'll work on the problems that you are concerned with. I believe that you misinterpreted me, however where there is smoke there is fire, so I definitely can be more sensitive to that.

I will say, I would like to see you start some threads. More often anyway. I'd be interested in what you have to say coming from your perspective. I'd like to see women starting more threads in all honesty, because it's difficult to sit by and wait for something to be initiated. I'd rather know what you are for rather than what you are not for. At this point, I know what is bothering you, because you told me so, I'd like to hear what goals you have and ideas to get there. No hurry or anything, I'm just genuinely interested in hearing it. But in due time..... Thanks for reading this too. I'm glad we did this. Also, please feel free to pm me with your concerns, if I do something that could be offensive, let me know and I'll change it. No problem there.

[Ripley]

66. Two points.

I HAVE started a few threads here, and I don't really appreciate you telling me how I SHOULD post (as opposed to what I have posted).

Why do I need to PM you? Someone else here asks me to do that, too. Why do you want a private conversation with me? Most people who PM each other have a desire to, they are not requested to.

[Wetzelbill]

69. oh, no intention to tell you how to post....

Just saying I like to see you post more. Because I appreciate what you say and all. It's valuable.

I said "feel free" to pm me if you want. You don't need to do a damn thing if you don't want to. I'm just saying if you see me make a screw up, feel free to pm me if you want so I can edit it or whatever. Like the "Don't hurt me" comment. I damn well wish somebody would have let me know about it when I still could have edited it out. I wasn't telling you that you HAD to do anything. Whether it was posting or not. I was just saying I like hearing your thoughts and was inviting you to pm me if you want. If that angers you, like it seemed to do, I'm not sure what to say to that.

[Ripley]

70. Just a simple suggestion.

This Group was established fairly recently. I don't expect you to read all of the threads here, but it might be helpful to you if you did go back and read this group from the beginning.

I would not myself be presumptuous enough to jump into a DU Group and start giving directions if I was the new person. I would try to understand their concerns, their problems and their POV.

BTW, do you not realize your sig is historically a slam on women?

Piece of ass is not generally regarded as an equal opportunity statement.

[Wetzelbill]

71. oh sorry, I got it from a woman

I'll change it.

I read some of the previous threads. I'll check out more though.

I didn't give directions. I said I'd like to hear more of what you have to say. And, I meant that.

[alarcojon]

58. For what it's worth

I do NOT want this to become a human rights group. I would rather leave than have people think I am trying to do that. I want this to be a comfortable space for women to discuss their issues. I want to continue to learn about those issues, as I have been doing all my adult life, and will undoubtedly be doing until they lower me into the ground.

In my defense, I have only posted on two threads in this forum, one of which I started and this one, which is ostensibly about men. To me that does not constitute trying to take over this forum. I am NOT trying to do that, as I believe I have made clear elsewhere. I will definitely be more vigilant of that dynamic in the future.

[lukasahero]

61. Did you mean to reply to my post?

I'm ony asking because I was replying to Trotsky and meant no specific or implied reference to you (really). I have read your posts, alarcoeg, and bear you no ill will. I have seen you react defensively, but I have also seen you reconsider your words and listen to what is being said.

I have noticed however, that you do appear to be more receptive to Bill pointing things out than Eloriel or myself, for whatever that's worth. Bill said the exact same things in post 50 as I did in post 48 ("try listening") but you responded to him positively and made no response (as of yet) to me. Perhaps there is something there to consider.

[alarcojon]

73. Lukashero

Yes, I replied to you. It has, I have to be frank, been unclear to me how I am received here. I feel like I've walked into something which I know nothing about. There are issues going back into the history of this group which I knew nothing about until the last few days. I am becoming aware of them, and wish to adjust to the structure of the group and respect the rules. I would definitely heve been interested in contributing in some small way to the formation of this group if I had been aware of it. I had been mostly away from DU for a while and just stumbled across DU groups in general just a few days ago.

As I mentioned earlier, I think my error was in posting from a male-centered view for my first time in this group. That, coupled with my defense of Trotsky from a harsh verbal thrashing, must have made me seem very suspect. I have to emphasize that I was not necessarily supporting Trotsky's arguments (we can discuss that further if you wish), but felt that the ferocity of the response was not in due measure to his offense.

I also don't bear you any ill will. Thanks for saying that. B-)

I responded to Wetzelbill rather than you (posts 48 and 50) only because you suggested I talk to him and he chimed in. I'm sorry if you felt brushed off by that - it was just thoughtless on my part.

If you will indulge me for a moment, notice how I have responded to several people in this thread, and I feel I've responded to Eloriel in more measured tones than she responded to me. As far as you are concerned, I asked you an honest question about the rules, which you chose for whatever reasons to re-direct to Wetzelbill, who complied. If sarcasm was intended (which I'm not asserting, just wondering), I did not see it at that moment. I will grant you that the dynamic you describe is a danger we need to be aware of, but I feel the real answer is more complicated here.

Anyhow, I extend a peace offering to you, and look forward to hearing from you in the future.

[lukasahero]

84. We're cool, alarcoeg

For the record though, I wrote more in that post than just the subject line. Also I suggested Bill give his thoughts on the question, not that you should you talk only to him about it. Sorry if that was misunderstood. Trust me, I'm not in the habit of conceding to men - it was not meant as sarcasm and I was hoping Bill would chime in but I also thought I had answered your questions.

Anyway, you note now that it was "thoughtless" and I appreciate that you have understood (or at least considered) my point.

I have said elsewhere (written too much today to remember if it was in this thread) that I understand these are difficult waters to navigate and it is quite reasonable for not everyone to understand the history behind the formation of this group. I don't envy your position coming in here but I do appreciate the efforts of anyone who is willing to listen to a woman's side of the story without telling her she's wrong/misunderstanding/too sensitive/whatever. And I have read your posts and seen that you do seem willing to listen. That's a good start.

I should "warn" you though that most of us are pretty sensitive right now and will remain "suspicious" of almost anyone's intentions until we get to know them. Try not to take it personally - and try to give it/us time. Just an FYI, for what it's worth.

[alarcojon]

87. Great!

I am glad you are not in the habit of conceding to men - that would make you pretty boring, in my opinion.

I think I have understood your point. I think it is something in my writing style, which may or may not be gender related.

It is unfortunate that women have to be so suspicious of men here. However, I DO undertand and respect the need for suspicion. Thanks for the warning.

[Ripley]

62. Okay.

Thanks. I guess I saw a gangbang on Eloriel and it pissed me off. She and I and anyone have a right to speak freely here about how we perceive things. Perhaps some of you just aren't aware of how bad DU rates as an open place for Feminists?

Lots of women have left this site...some of us left and came back. There are days when the level of hostility and derision is quite appalling. So, not to speak for Eloriel or anyone else but myself...I was pretty disheartened to see from day one that people have come into this group with the purpose of disrupting the conversations. I'm not referring to you...you just got lumped into it.

I'll try to not be so judgemental in the future and hope you will also become more aware of what a lot of us go through just trying to be treated with respect here at DU.

[alarcojon]

75. Ripley

You, Eloriel, and anybody else absolutely have the right to speak freely about what you see going on. And I've mentioned this somewhere, but I think it bears repeating - if you, Eloriel, lukashero, or anybody else thinks I'm showing a blind spot to my male privilege, hijacking the group, or whatever else it may be, PLEASE point it out and I will definitely consider your words fairly. I only ask that it be done in a civil tone.

I was aware to a certain extent of how bad DU is for women, but no, I was not aware how bad it is for many of you. I am, after all, male and was socialized with the experience of male privilege. It saddens me to learn this, as DU has meant a lot to me these last few years, but I absolutely believe you and will do what I can in the main forums to call people on that sort of crap. And here too, if it comes to that.

I'm glad you've shared with me your opinion that I just got lumped into it. As I mentioned above to lukashero, I want to be called on my male privilege when necessary, but in a civil and constructive way. The way Eloriel "welcomed me" to the group was not necessary, civil, or constructive. Not that I want to hold any grudge against her, but we may have to agree to disagree on some things. Such is the nature of all such robust subject matter.

Thank you for your peace offering and I extend it back to you. I will definitely be more alert for what needs to be done so that women can have a much better environment at DU.

[Wetzelbill]

51. Hi Ripley....just a few things...

I believe I am the only man in here who has mentioned running for office. I would also like to say that I was invited to this group, I didn't come in here on a whim, and when I introduced myself I mentioned that I was probably going to run for office, some of the women had already given me ideas on possible legislation and I would like to hear more. I apologize if you thought I was coming in here with the intention of telling anybody what's what. I will tell you this, where I'm from we have one woman on the tribal council who has no interest in helping women. Our female rep is term limited and the only people considering running for the seat I am running for are men. Plus, no other woman or man, would do nearly as good a job as I would on ALL issues. Frankly, none are even in my class, so I wouldn't support a woman just to support a woman when I know I'd do a better job then her. The same with a man. Or another Indian, which I am. I just wouldn't do it. And, honestly, I hope you wouldn't do it either.

Yesterday, I had a tussle with MissU, not because I thought I was right. I made a mistake and apologized for it. Several times. She jumped in to argue on a reply that wasn't to her between two people who were joking with each other. She doesn't read my posts, she just finds something to criticize me about. Never anything positive whatsoever. I would apologize and say that I understood, but that I felt offended about something and she would just keep coming at me. Maybe she overreacted a few days ago on GD -where it all started - and maybe I overreacted yesterday. But, I'm nobody's doormat, and I'll stick up for myself whether it's a woman or a man who offends me. If you made posts and I jumped in and criticized you all the time, whether I did it in civil tones or not, you'd rightfully tell me to shove it I'm sure. But, I actually listen, first and foremost, I don't tell women what needs to be done, I specifically asked what you all felt needed to be done. In fact, I wish that you would answer my post and give me some ideas too. I wish you all would. It started to get away from that.

I didn't reply to this to come off aggressive, but you referred to me twice without using my name, and I wanted to give my side of the story. If you feel I need to be purged, then so be it, I was invited here, so I'm sure I can be disinvited pretty fast too. I'm glad you aired your grievances though. I will make it a point to be quieter in this forum.

[lukasahero]

52. I appreciate your efforts Bill but

when you end with a line like "I will make it a point to be quieter ...about women's issues in my platform." because of a couple of critical posters after all the support you have received here, it begins to make me question your committment to women's issues. If you're going to give up on us because a couple of people on a message board criticized you, then how am I to believe you will stand up for us when someone with real power criticizes you?

Just my take on it...

[Wetzelbill]

55. typo, thanks for pointing it out

I was trying to say something else and then I just put it another way. After that I went and edited the stuff at the top, but forgot to delete the bottom part. That looked bad, huh? :)

[lukasahero]

57. No problem - just wanted to point it out

I think alot of people are curious and some are even skeptical of your involvement here. I, for one, while even still a bit hesitant, do want to say I appreciate the effort you make.

It is difficult, I think, for a guy to come in here, or any women's issues topic, and not say the wrong thing sometimes. It's partly the language and partly the defensiveness of the parties involved. You have thus far shown a willingness to listen and that's a big plus.

Glad you took my comments in the spirit they were intended. And I'm sorry if they weren't as gracefully delivered as they could have been. No ill intent was meant.

[Wetzelbill]

67. I should say when I say quieter...

I don't mean to not reply or anything like that. I mean be a little quieter with my language and all.

No, I know what you meant, you have been cool to me since the first second I showed up. I'm surprised people were skeptical of me though. I never realized that. I was invited, so I showed up, I probably wouldn't have otherwise. But, you were perfectly fine with your comments, no problem here. :)

[lukasahero]

85. We are going to be skeptical of *everyone* here for a while

Seriously. We've been screwed as a rule. We're still working out who's who and what everyone's real intentions are. Are you familiar with the CL fiasco? We don't want to get burned again. Hang in.

[Misunderestimator]

91. It would serve you well to not trash me behind my back...

This is the second time in as many days I have taken you off ignore only to find you insulting me. Anyone here is welcome to read every post I've made to you. Your rewriting of history is appalling.

Fortunately, reading your posts on this thread has made me understand that you are this way with a lot of women. You perceive constructive criticism as a personal attack. You apologize when you offend someone while at the same time saying that you don't understand how you offended them. You are disruptive, you are arrogant, you are presumptuous, and you are underhanded and disingenuous and full of empty platitudes.

I'm not one for limiting your speech, but having read enough of it here... I fully support your desire to be quieter in this forum. Silent would be even better.

And for anyone who thinks I am being unreasonably harsh... Too bad.

[Wetzelbill]

94. I wish you'd ignore that

It was when we were in the middle of one of our arguments. Let's just forget it and not fight. We got off on the wrong foot and been petty about it since. It's not easy when a person feels like they are getting it from all sides. I may have overreacted but I was awful defensive at the time. This has all just been unnecessary, I wish I could erase the passed several days but I can't. I'm not the jerk you think I am. I don't think badly of you or anything. I think we just aren't giving the other much of a break and we can be better than that. I'd like to get along. So take that for what it's worth. This is my last post in here I just saw I had a reply in "My Posts" so I came to check it out. We treat each other pretty awful, and that's not right on either side. So, let's make peace if we can. :)

[alarcojon]

46. An honest question

I (masculinely) find a logical inconsistency in the rules. How can a man discuss women's rights and issues from a woman's perspective and experience? We don't have a woman's perspective and experience. Yet the rules also state that like-minded men are welcome.

I am really not trying to invade anyone's safe space or hijack anyone's discussion. Perhaps a solution would be to have a women only group and then a group where women and men can discuss feminism. I'm sure many women would feel more comfortable with the former, and could have more open discussions. I fully understand and respect that. Yet I have my doubts that a group like the latter would fly, and this worries me a bit, because I really want to learn from women and perhaps throw in my perspective here and there without being thrown to the lions.

Anyhow, I will refrain from discussing how men are affected by patriarchy in this group in the future. If I do it inadvertently, please call me on it. It is not my "issue" - I got sucked into the discussion because I felt a fellow poster was being personally attacked.

Thank you for for insightful, measured thoughts. And thank you, and Eloriel and all else involved, for starting this group.

[lukasahero]

48. Perhaps Wetzelbill can answer that question for you

since he seems quite capable of discussing the situation with an understanding of a woman's perspective? Or perhaps men could learn to listen a little more and gain a woman's perspective?

I don't believe the rules are illogical at all unless they are abbreviated and important phrases omitted. The discussion is to be about the issues AS THEY AFFECT women from a woman's perspective and experience.

It is not that the discussion must be from a woman's perspective alone. A man cannot tell a woman how the issues affect her. He can however, listen to her experience and perspective and join in the discussion of how those issues can be rectified. He can hear her and learn how his own behavior might contribute to the problem and how he can make a difference in resolving those issues.

[Wetzelbill]

50. Well....I'll try..

I think it is best to first simply listen to and look at it from a women's point of view. Eventually, when they are more comfortable with you and see that you are genuine and are doing something for women's rights, then you will be able to give a man's pov. Otherwise, you may get yourself in trouble. I certainly did, especially with one member. It's not easy, you shouldn't have to tip-toe around, or be anybody's doormat, but you do need to respect where the discussion should start and then take it from there.

[alarcojon]

56. Wetzelbill

You're right, my mistake was coming in here and posting from a man's perspective before everyone got to know me. This has led to some misunderstandings on the post I started, and has obviously upset some members of this group, for which I wholeheartedly apologize.

You might notice in my post # 8 I am clearly aware of this dynamic, yet I guess I still came in guns a blazin'. I will work harder to understand that dynamic in myself.

Peace

[Eloriel]

77. No, posting a man's perspective AT ALL is the problem

I'm not saying you can't ever here (tho that would be preferrable IMO), but WE GET MAN'S PERSPECTIVE ALL THE TIME. Everywhere. Unceasingly. From everywhere we look within the whole culture in which we live, from before we are even born until after we die. WE DON'T NEED MORE. We don't need men getting what they think are great ideas about how we women should do things -- how, in fact, women should run their very own movement (nothing grandiose about that!!) -- coming here thinking they will be greeted with open arms, thanks and praise. N0! No, THANK you. We've got that. What we need is a completely different paradigm, one that isn't totally and utterly and irrevokably male-centric. One that steps aside and makes SURE that women and other under-valued and under-represented voices get PLENTY of room to speak and be heard and matter.

In another post you said something about the necessity for "trying not to hijack" any threads in this forum. No on that too. Forget trying. DON'T hijack any threads -- just don't, period. Don't even come close. But even that's not enough, frankly. You have to realize that your very presence in this forum (or any forum where women are) changes the dynamics, and NOT for the better, no matter how pro-woman you are (or think you are). That's just fact, borne out by sociological studies. Your very presence is a disruption to the energy of women and our issues, which are frankly quite vulnerable. How MUCH of a disruption is up to you and how you conduct yourself eery given moment. Whether you can make the inevitable disruption one which is ultimately seen as positive and creative and productive for the women involved is the challenge -- but it WON'T be by inserting MEN'S perspective every chance you get (or even perhaps EVER). That much I can promise you.

I was very, very much against even having this forum open to men at all for precisely that reason (I don't remember if I posted my opposition or not). But it IS open to men, and when I found one man whose posts simply blew me away with what I considered absolutely superb comprehension of women's issues and perspective (fueled, no doubt in MY mind, by the fact that he is himself a member of a severely oppressed minority, and a very conscious one, rather well-educated in women's issues), I invited him to join us.

I think that was a mistake on my part, and I'll take that up with him privately.

[alarcojon]

86. Eloriel

You may have noticed my suggestion of a women-only group. As you point out, that would allow for franker discussions among women. And I registered my unconditional support for such a forum, which needless to say I would stay away from. You could even make it password protected or something. Not that I would come anywhere near it, but some men might.

You were absolutely way over the top in your response to me. I'm sorry, but we all get to be frank here. I have come to understand some of the dynamics of why you and others got so angry, but you said some pretty rude things to me based on minimal knowledge of me. I'm not telling you this because I want you to respond to it in any particular way - to tell you the truth I don't much care.

At least you are frank, you don't want men posting here. But, unfortunately for you, apparently a consensus was reached that men should be allowed to post, and I will exercise that right as I see fit. If you choose to respond to any of my posts (nobody MAKES you read any of my posts - there IS an ignore feature which you are welcome to use on me), I will consider your response as I have that of everyone else here, in the spirit of greater understanding. But if you are going to make your sometimes excellent points in a rude, combative sort of way, I will not be inclined to respond to you directly in any way. Especially if you call my reading comprehension or analytical thinking skills into question. NO DUer should routinely treat another in that way. It is a path I see as producing nothing but negative energy. But if you are calling me on something, I promise you I WILL consider what you have to say carefully. I won't agree with some of what you say, but I suspect we agree on a lot more than you think.

I understand that my mere presence here changes the dynamic, but you yourself acknowledge that it is possible that that disruption is "ultimately seen as positive and creative and productive for the women involved." So your use of the word "disruption" frames your point in a negative, divisive way towards men, all men. I'm not telling you what words to use - just pointing out that your words are less than in the spirit of open dialogue.

Also, since you mention members of oppressed minorities, I call your attention to post # 39, where I identify as a man of color. I am in fact Latino.

[Misunderestimator]

90. The concensus was on the mission statement.... you should read it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=341x1

It has been the contributions of a few men here that have led me to think that allowing men to post was a mistake as well. This does NOT feel like a "safe and non-threatening community where all those interested in discussing and trying to resolve the problems that are inherent to women in society can come and work together free from defending the basic premise that issues do exist which specifically affect and limit women, their rights and their potential."

Instead it feels like a combative community where men come here to bestow their great intelligence on us lowly women. Fuck that. I've waited a long time to be confrontational here. No more benefit of the doubt... if you show yourself to be this type of person in this forum, I'm not planning on ignoring it any longer. All that has done is allow more disruption to creep in. Like ignoring a termite problem.

[alarcojon]

93. I've read it several times

No need to assume I haven't read it or can't comprehend it.

I suspect you think that in my case that I don't "get" item 1:

This is not a group to discuss gender, class or sexual orientation rights and issues. It is specifically to discuss women's rights and issues as they affect women from a woman's perspective and experience.

I DO get it, and realize that my post about "bad boys," as written, can be seen as violating that statement. I feel, based on some comments I was eventually able to verbalize (after valuable exchanges with some fellow posters) my real question to this group: How do you keep a young man from buying into the rape culture?

Anyhow, I understand that you and others will be looking at me with suspicion. That's fine. As I've mentioned in another post, if I AM bringing in my male privilege without noticing, I would ask that it be called to my attention, but, please (and this isn't directed specifically at you), with some modicum of civility.

[Eloriel]

95. And if not done with sufficient civility,

you will just ignore it? Or what?

Sorry, but I am not convinced that civility will reach you. I don't think there's much that will reach you.

You're not even getting it about what Misunderesetimator said to you. In fact, you are spending all your time here "not getting it," near as I can tell. You waited a whole 3-1/2 hours in the middle of the goddamn night (Eastern time, where a LOT of us live) but just couldn't wait a minute longer and absolutely HAD to be the first poster to a thread about whether the forum itself was meeting needs. You gave NO THOUGHT to the notion that YOUR needs may not be the ones that the forum was intended to meet, and YOUR response may not be needed, or wanted, or appropriate. How's THAT for "I AM bringing in my male privilege without noticing" behavior? Blatant enough for you?

If I had been in your shoes, I would have waited years if necessary to avoid being the very first "look at me" poster to that thread, and would have seriously weighed whether I should post to it or not.

Maybe for some here that response of yours was more than welcome, but for me it was just another example of how completely out of touch and cavalierly insensitive you are to the goals and mission of this forum.
(Clue: It's NOT about you, no matter how desperately you want and need it to be.)

[alarcojon]

96. Your opinion of me is duly noted

[Eloriel]

97. OK. I was wrong.

I wasn't going to respond to your blather, but I am NOT going to let you reinterpret MY words for YOUR purposes. Not going to happen.

This is what I actually said:

You have to realize that your very presence in this forum (or any forum where women are) changes the dynamics, and NOT for the better, no matter how pro-woman you are (or think you are). That's just fact, borne out by sociological studies. Your very presence is a disruption to the energy of women and our issues, which are frankly quite vulnerable. How MUCH of a disruption is up to you and how you conduct yourself every given moment. Whether you can make the inevitable disruption one which is ultimately seen as positive and creative and productive for the women involved is the challenge -- but it WON'T be by inserting MEN'S perspective every chance you get (or even perhaps EVER). That much I can promise you.


And this is your re-interpretation:
...you yourself acknowledge that it is possible that that disruption is "ultimately seen as positive and creative and productive for the women involved."

Yeah, technically I suggested such a possibility, but boy, was I wrong. You ignored my much bigger and more important point, which was how men would have to behave in order to MININIMIZE the INEVITABLE disruption, and rushed to not just glide or even jump over but POLE-VAULT over that point in order to propose justification for your presence on this forum, AND talk (at length) about YOUR experience, YOUR perspective, YOUR thoughts and opinions.

But at least you made me realize how wrong I was, dirctly due to the ample demonstration of that via your own behavior. So, I now realize: I WAS WRONG. I now realize that it would take a very, very special man to be able to do what I suggested -- so special perhaps he would be a saint or a god, or an apparition. IOW: I wasn't just wrong, I was dreaming. Fantasizing.

But that's not enough. THEN you proceeded to do something else that men have done for millennia to avoid dealing with women's problems and concerns, complaints, wishes, desires, in this stunning pair of sentences:

So your use of the word "disruption" frames your point in a negative, divisive way towards men, all men. I'm not telling you what words to use - just pointing out that your words are less than in the spirit of open dialogue.

You try to turn the tables on me and make yourself the aggrieved and oh-so-wronged party -- and not for the first time on this forum. This is one of a large handful of standard, pedictable, typical patterns that men pull out whenever confronted with women's issues (and demands) so they can deflect the attention back to themselves and avoid dealing with the issues at all. You'll see it in every thread that's ever been posted on rape, domestic violence, etc., etc. We'll call this one the "Poor me, I'm the real victim here" argument. Poor, aggrieved men. So misunderstood, so harmed, so hurt, so wounded, so wronged, so lied about, so treated "over the top"). (Any ego in that? Naahhh, couldn't be, right?)

What you've written is just a crock of shit. Once again: it's not about YOU. Once again I'll remind you that you don't seem to have any clue or appreciation for what the mission of this Group is, but I sure as hell don't recall "open dialogue with men" being listed.

You can find all kinds of fault with what I've said to you, but not once that I've seen have you demonstrated ANY understanding, ANY interest in understanding, ANY interest in hearing, what has been said to YOU, despite your assertions about your willingness to listen and heed to the contrary. It's just talk, no action.

You were absolutely way over the top in your response to me.

Oh yeah? Then why wasn't it deleted if it was so over the top? Perhaps you just don't have the temperament for rough-and-tumble political discussion forums. I actually just re-read it, and BOY! are you way over-sensitive. If you would re-read it yourself, and do so imagining a "quiet voice" in your head, not the shrieking one "heard" prior to this, and you would find a lot less offense than you imagined. A LOT less. Lucasahero kept alluding to that, and you kept ignoring her, which only adds to the aura of sexism I percieve about you because men are forever simply ignoring women -- it's a BIG part of what sexism is all about.

But if you are calling me on something, I promise you I WILL consider what you have to say carefully.

Oh? Starting when? Like I said, I haven't seen you "consider" ANYthing that any woman member of this Group has said to you (let alone carefully), though you did acknowledge another man's advice, which you then blithely proceeded to ignore.

Also, since you mention members of oppressed minorities, I call your attention to post # 39, where I identify as a man of color. I am in fact Latino.

Hmm, well, I'm a little surprised you find the oppression of Latinos equivalent to that of Native Americans, but perhaps there are huge chunks of U.S. history I've never heard about. It doesn't feel quite right to "rank" oppressions, exactly, but, well, genocide really is kinda the bottom of the barrel, wouldn't you say? That and slavery, of coruse. Too, I would point out that your culture isn't exactly known for its respectful elevation of women to full equality..., so I'm not quite clear on how you see that as something in your favor. But, whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

[alarcojon]

98. I did not imply any ranking of oppressiom.

Hmm, well, I'm a little surprised you find the oppression of Latinos equivalent to that of Native Americans, but perhaps there are huge chunks of U.S. history I've never heard about. It doesn't feel quite right to "rank" oppressions, exactly, but, well, genocide really is kinda the bottom of the barrel, wouldn't you say? That and slavery, of coruse. Too, I would point out that your culture isn't exactly known for its respectful elevation of women to full equality..., so I'm not quite clear on how you see that as something in your favor. But, whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

YOU made a big deal of inviting Bill over because he was a member of an oppressed minority. I was merely identifying as a man of color. Where did I say "my oppression is equivalent to his"? You are inferring that from my words, which said nothing of the sort.

For the record, no, I don't believe Latinos are as oppressed as Native Americans or African Americans. But I emphasize that I did not write that - YOU jumped to that conclusion.

Still, it's interesting that, when confronted with the fact that I am Latino, you decide to attack my culture for its sexism. Certainly, there are problems with sexism in every culture, including mine. Is Anglo culture not sexist? African American? Asian? Middle Eastern? Did I say somewhere that Latino men are not sexist? In short, what exactly is your point in bringing this up?

Oh yeah? Then why wasn't it deleted if it was so over the top?

Since you bring it up, I certainly didn't alert on you, and maybe nobody else did. Maybe somebody did and the mods decided to leave it. Who knows?

However, there IS a deleted post on that thread, right?

Since you are fond of citing the rules, here are some DU rules:

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Please consider the rules in your future dealings with me.

[Finder]

15. Sorry, Eloriel, you are the one being rude...

and it is silly to argue like this. We are all on the same side.

[Misunderestimator]

92. Are we.... on the same side?

Doesn't seem like it to me.

[Logansquare]

9. I use a simple analogy

Salt and sugar are two different substances. They differ in chemical makeup, taste, and uses. But a pound of salt weighs the same as a pound of sugar. Men and women are undeniable different in size, strength, and reproductive roles. But equally must men and women be weighed, although it is yet a work in progress. That is feminism.

The tough part is determining how to think, act and legislate in a way that allows men and women be weighed equally. Are there jobs that require such a large amount of physical strength that only men are suitable for them? (only sugar sweetens, you know, you can't substitute salt) Or, is the bar set artificially high for physical strength, and women would be capable of performing these tasks if not judged by the standards established by physically stronger males?(We know that women competently did extraordinary amounts of physical labor during WWII).

Some neurologists say that the part of the brain which is used for mathematical and logical functions is better developed and more active in male subjects. Thus, the paucity of female scientists in the United States is surely determined by biology. However, in countries where there is a need to quickly develop a scientific and technological infrastructure (the former Soviet Union comes to mind), the percentage of female scientists is much higher. They know how to turn salt into sugar, apparently.

[Wetzelbill]

37. you are way too smart for me

When you aren't cracking jokes, I just pretty much nod at the pc screen and pretend I understand what you're talking about. :)

At this point, I don't even know if I'm sugar or salt, Sweet n' Low, etc.

I do have a question... do you think the lack of female scientists really is biological? After the Lawrence Summers thing I saw so many different analyses that I didn't know what to believe.

[Logansquare]

53. No, I don't think the reason is primarily biological

(Thanks, Bill. You are too kind)

It's possible that men do have a greater natural facility with math and science than women. I remember hearing a radio program where a female to male transsexual talked about his experiences becoming a man after living for years as a biological female. During his transition, he received massive doses of synthetic testosterone. Aside from some of the more hilarious side-effects (he felt aroused all the time, and even found his office photocopier to be somehow sexy), he said that for the first time in his life, he became interested in science. The interviewer laughed in disbelief, and he said "no, I really really started to find science fascinating!"

But, if we were to believe that biology is destiny, we'd also have to believe that east Asians have a natural ability to excel at mathematics and European classical music, since a disproportionate number of Asians dominate both arenas. In fact, a combination of the Confucian philosophy of patient practice and traditional obedience to parental wishes has more to do with this than biology. Are Jewish people somehow better suited to the practice of law? Once again, a disproportionate number of Jewish lawyers practice in this country. However, if we are aware of the long tradition of rabbinical study and interpretation of the Torah, we can understand that law has been an integral part of Judaism for over 2,000 years.

So, do we have a culture which encourages excellence in science and mathematics in this country? I don't believe so, compared to other countries. My husband is an IT project manager, and he has worked with a team of young Indian contractors. The women were every bit as good as the men, in his opinion, better--because they communicated problems to him more readily. There were more men than women represented in the team, but Christ, this is INDIA, where women are more oppressed than in the United States. The difference is that the Indian educational system, at least for its upper classes, pushes math and science with the same intensity to both genders.

Until we create a culture where women are encouraged to learn math and science, we will have few women scientists. In addition, because I do believe in some gender differences, science and math should be taught to women in a modality better suited to our gender. Competition should be deemphasized, and cooperation and female mentoring should be encouraged. Of course, this isn't going to fly with the current academic culture, which is built on the premise that learning is some sort of Darwinian struggle which will separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Wetzelbill]

60. So was it sexist of him to elude to that?

I pretty much stepped back on the Larry Summers thing and I don't even think I have an opinion on it I know so little of it all. Maybe some of the women who walked out overreacted, but they probably had valid reasons to be angry. I did hear men -some conservative women - say things like: "Well, he was in an academic setting, trying to give out ideas." It all was incredulous to me. So I sort of, tuned it out after awhile.

I would think that culture has a lot to do with anything. In a study done, I'm not sure when, but some of the smartest kids in the country came from the Montana hi-line. Per capita, they had a disproportionate amount of students in the top few percent on SAT scores and othe criteria. But, in our culture, we are more laid back, you know? Some of those really smart kids probably ended up running their dad's farm or ranch and doing a great job of it I'm sure. For us, being a rocket scientist isn't something we ever think of, it took me most of my life to realize that, I wasn't going to be a person who dug ditches or worked for the local weed department or something. Which is fine, don't get me wrong nothing is bad about working hard and all. I'm just saying my culture, being a small town farmboy from an Indian reservation, has taught me to be low-key about and modest about certain careers and aspirations. For example, we don't have many doctors from my area. That's something most people don't really get into. I think many would rather get into teaching at a small town school or run a farm or something a little more laid back, like that.

Out of curiousity, what do you do for a living?

And, yes, photocopiers are sexy. :)

[lukasahero]

63. Can I interject some thoughts on this?

I don't mean to interrupt your conversation with Logan but I, being a computer professional and having a master's of science degree, have some serious thoughts and feelings on this. I did not get too involved in the Summer's debate because to me, it was simply idiocy for him to say such a thing without considering how what he said would be received.

What I have taken away from it, however, is that we as a society have to get away from the idea that "different" equals "less". I don't know, and frankly don't care, what Summer's "meant" to say. As an academic, he should have understood the implication behind his words and how they would be heard and received in our current society.

It's like the B* administration - they say whatever they want knowing that they can always come back and say "you're just taking it that way, we didn't mean it that way". It's bs and they know it. And so does/did Summers.

[Wetzelbill]

68. that was my first impression....

I thought it was so stupid of him for him to say it, but I also hadn't read his whole speech or anything. If I were to say, write an op-ed on the subject, I would have read his speech. I didn read it, because after the first week of coverage and reading everybody's perspective on it from Maureen Dowd to George Will, I simply disengaged from it. I think men and conservatives began to look at it and say:"well if a woman said this about men.....". And, that talk really put me off, because that isn't the issue. Plus, he should have known better than to put it the way he was putting it. I sensed lots of insensitivity towards the women's anger.

I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with saying something and explaining to critics that they took it wrong. But, if it keeps happening over and over about different things and that is your only defense, well, then there is a problem.

I don't mind you jumping in. If you have a good point to make, well, more power to you.

[Logansquare]

72. I am a librarian

A traditional low-ambition profession. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a farmboy or a ditchdigger (I'm related to both). I'm not sure if Summers was being intentionally sexist, or if he was just musing out loud about the reasons for so few women in the sciences. What was wrong about his statement was that he thought he could be an average academic just talkin' about gender differences. He is the president of Harvard, and he has to have the common sense and gravitas to not say something that makes female faculty and graduate students feel like they aren't even going to get a chance. I've heard he's somewhat tone-deaf to the feelings of others, and had insulted a number of people there, not just women.

[Wetzelbill]

82. Well put

Summers has kind of been known to be abrasive like that. Even when he was working more in the policy arena.

In my book, a librarian is a high ambition profession. :)

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Admitted math-phobe here

I'm wondering as I read this little thread-let if the problem is that males have historically defined what "good at math and science" means and that girls and women are not taught those disciplines in a manner that resonates with them. I remember that I could actually be quite good at algebra, geometry, and calculus when I got a teacher that explained how those concepts were important in many fields and that I could use them to apply logical thinking to all kinds of situations in my life. It wasn't just math for math's sake, which seemed silly to me as I've always been a practical person.

I always did well at the word problems that my male classmates seemed to stuggle with. I liked the idea of thinking of an equation as "If train A and B leave the station at the same time...." I thought of it as: Ok, it's up to me to figure out how to get these trains where they're supposed to be. And I would arrive at the correct solution just as quickly as the guys would if it were just numbers and symbols.

[alarcojon]

76. Math professor here.

You raise a very good point. It could well be true. In my experience I have not noticed that women in general are any better or worse at story problems - or at abstract math either. Our Department Junior of the year (and sure to become Senior of the Year) is female, and is definitely going to graduate school and will do well in the fields of Abstract Algebra, Representation Theory, and if I have any say in it, Graph Theory :headbang:. Still, I haven't done a scientific study on it or anything. Something I'll pay more attention to in the future.

My approach to the problem solving process is discovery, starting with basic heuristics such as "look at a small case" or "draw and label a picture" and proceeding to a logical solution. And there are definitely textbooks available (I use one of them) which have a more applied emphasis which I think you would favor.

[Wetzelbill]

81. yeah that's a good point

I'm terrible at math myself. Pretty awful at it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. The role of men in feminism, as I see it, and ...........

.......... as I've experienced in my long life, is the same as the role of women.

I am no one's "victim," and I never was, from the moment of my birth. I am here to do the best I can, and the ones who can't keep up - regardless of gender - will fall by the wayside. There are some with whom I couldn't keep up, and I got left behind while they made tracks.

But, in every transaction, I learned. I got something I hadn't had before, and, for better or worse, I made it work for me. If someone thinks porn is demeaning to women, I'm going to be sure to give that person a wide berth, because I know that their beliefs are far different from mine, and I believe the issue is more complicated than that. That sort of "professional victimization" only leads to useless debates that are meaningless in their lack of content and demoralizing in their incipient and misplaced anger.

You know, I've been shortchanged by our society in a hell of a lot of ways, not all of them having to do with my uterus. I could rage on about it, but what would that accomplish? Too much of what has been mislabeled "feminism" is simply a vehicle for angry women to punish men for things over which those men have no control. It's sort of how I feel about reparations for African Americans - it's a goofy idea.

As far as I'm concerned, those who isolate feminism and want it to be treated as a separate issue are asking to be marginalized and isolated. They're pulling out what are essential parts of a social necessity and mishandling them. Today, feminism is just as vital a matter as any other civil right, and, in the same way we teach our children and our students, we must live the models that we want the coming generations to emulate. Rage and blame and anger will not accomplish any of that, I believe.

As for the notion that Clarence Thomas on the Court meant that he would support Affirmative Action - well, you must understand first that the simple notion of Affirmative Action meant that no one member of any minority who benefitted from that program (I am one of them) would ever be beholden. In fact, Thomas took an oath to uphold the law, and when no good Affirmative Action or equal protection cases came before the Court, he voted as he saw appropriate. No, I don't like his votes on most cases, but to try to put him in some sort of box and then be surprised because he didn't vote like the token some might assume him to be is to stereotype and to discriminate and to show more about bias than I'm sure anyone ever suspected about themselves.

Feminism is simply humanism, and we are all in this together. I will join hands with a man or a woman, a homosexual or a heterosexual, a transexual or a transvestite, a nun or a rabbi, a felon and a celibate, if it will advance us towards the goal of equal treatment for all.

It begins with the individual. There can be no blame, there can be no punishment, there can be no recriminations. There can only be a going forward, hand in hand.

[Finder]

23. Extends hand...

darn, no emoticon for it.lol

Good post.

[trotsky]

25. Thanks for that, OLL.

Beautiful words. "Feminism is simply humanism, and we are all in this together." So true.

[shockra]

31. I have problems with Feminism = Humanism

As long as some people are considered more human than others, it's primarily going to advance the agenda of those considered most human. Since it's a manmade language humanity is defined in a patriarchal manner.

Take corporate "personhood," for the most depraved example. The "person" that a corporation is is most certainly a rich, white, heterosexual male. Could we even, for a moment, see it as a black, a woman, a poor person? That which is considered the most human reaps all the benefits and privileges that entails.

Seeing all people as equal can be a way of avoiding and respecting difference. Like when Tom Cruise mentioned to Oprah that he'd never talked about racism with his black son, because to him "all people are the same. I don't see color." I've certainly heard African-American feminists complain about this perspective as a cop-out. In order to understand another's reality, you have to see color (or whatever the difference is) in order to appreciate the other's humanity. Just saying "we're all the same" doesn't absolve anyone from the responsibility of learning about how they may contribute to many types of oppression. In fact, it's a benefit of privilege that you can say something like that and have it considered admirable. Privilege doesn't see the ways in which it's privileged, because it doesn't have to.

Liberal feminism depends on individuals to effect change and be responsible for themselves. That's a necessary step, but not enough. Radical feminism sees the context in which everything is happening (patriarchy), and how appealing to individuals's sense of fairness can only advance society so far. That's why I became a radical feminist. Liberal feminism doesn't seek to change the status quo, but rather have women be more equal to men in a system developed around males as the norm in every area.

Probably the best feminist book I've ever read is The Gender Knot by Allan Johnson, in large part because he describes the male role in feminism wonderfully. I posted about it a couple times this year in GD, as well as an excerpt.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Corporate "personhood" is a legal term

It's certainly not meant as the personification you presented.

But, if you read my post as saying that all people are treated equally in this world, you have seriously misunderstood what I wrote.

I think people have their own agendae for making an essentially simple issue into something complicated and difficult. Who cares what Tom Cruise says about his child, and what does that have to do with men's roles in the feminist matter?

No one's absolved of anything, and that was my point. I no longer buy the notion of oppression, because there are far too many other factors that contribute to where women are today and where we want to go. That kind of thinking has caused a lot more loss for women than, I think, they realize.

For instance, in the first, strong surge of feminism in the early seventies, there was a great push for the Equal Rights Amendment. I never supported it, because it was just plain bad law. But, in the wake of that movement, state legislatures were lobbied - by women - to effect changes in the divorce laws, demanding parity.

Women shot themselves in the foot with that one. It was a decade before the full results were shown, and it was the end of alimony as it had always been, it was the end of fault divorce, which historically made for much better financial settlements for the women and children, and it sent far more women tumbling into a workplace for which they were ill-prepared and ill-suited.

So much for parity. So much for eliminating "oppression."

In my definition, feminism certainly does seek to change the status quo. That's the whole point of all of it. Your phrase about "...have women be more equal to men in a system developed around males as the norm in every area" overlooks a very simple reality - that there is no such thing as "more equal." You're either equal or you're not, and if you're not, then it's a matter to be handled.

The approach that's always worked for me and my female colleagues has been to enter those systems and then remake them so as to better accommodate us. The men went along when it was shown to them that they were benefiting, too.

In short, I maintain that cooperation and trust are the vital elements that will effect the best kind of change for women. So long as the best parts of the movement are hijacked by those with particularly subjective and narrowly defined perspectives that add little or nothing to the larger ideal and practice, not much will get accomplished.

There are ways of getting things done. There is the angry demanding and blaming mode, and there is the open and cooperative mode. Until women understand and embrace the true power we have, we're playing a game of letting the men define the rules, when, in fact, we define everything - if we dare to take the risks.

[smirkymonkey]

33. Great post!

I agree that getting to a place where women are assuming roles equal to that of men in an already opressive, sexist societal model is a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I don't want the freedom to be equal to men in a man's world. I want the freedom to be myself in a world that respects all human beings equally.

[alarcojon]

39. Yes, great points, shockra!

and more proof that Tom Cruise is an idiot (sorry, pet issue of mine B-)).

In fact, it's a benefit of privilege that you can say something like that and have it considered admirable. Privilege doesn't see the ways in which it's privileged, because it doesn't have to.

Exactly right! I have always been acutely aware of this, as a man of color.

As for your distinction between liberal and radical feminism, I largely agree, though oldleftielawyer makes a compelling argument the other way. It is the system that must change - not just women becoming more like men.

Thanks for the reference to The Gender Knot. I'll definitely check it out.

[lukasahero]

41. Bravo shockra. 'nuff said. n/t

[Eloriel]

80. I have always been completely bumfuzzled by your ID

"old leftie lawyer"

I always imagine old meaning at least my age (57) if not older, and so therefore probably liberal when liberal really WAS liberal.

Leftie, that's a term an "old" liberal might consider equivalent to socialist -- when it wasn't quite such a "bad" word or concept.

And lawyer, i think of civil rights and EEOC lawyers I've known which would be in our age group, or what I would imagine is our age group. One of the "old leftie lawyers" I had the privilege of knowing slightly before she died a few years ago was the very young woman attorney who argued the Doe companion case to Roe before the Supreme Court in the early 70s.

So all these wonderful assocoations are running through my mind when I see a post of yours, and then I read the post of yours. And I am always not just shocked but thrown into cognitive dissonance.

They are NEVER (that I can recall) liberal or "leftish" at all. They are at best centrist or moderate, and more usually than not conservative to a degree that at least the DLC would love, if not more infiltration-oriented members Conservative Women of America would approve.

What you've written above would DELIGHT most people on the right who are smart enough to want to undermine and especially co-opt the left. I can't remember when I saw someone on the Left give a nod to anything Clarence Thomas would do, as just one example.

You're entitled to your particular belief system, but it always leaves me so curious as why on earth do you call yourself a Leftie? You're just NOT, not by any definition or understanding I've ever encountered. Oh well. :shrug:

And then I note who has applauded your post, which makes it abundantly clear that there are serious, irresolvable philosophical, poliical and ideological differences among some of us here on this forum. No surprise, right?

[Misunderestimator]

88. Wow... and to think I just now read this post... after the PM I just sent

you... This post of yours is RIGHT ON THE MONEY! :thumbsup:

[Ripley]

89. Right, uhhuh.

Funny, it sounds like since the days you marched arm in arm with Gloria Steinem everything has worked out hunky dorey. All injustices towards women have been erased. Women have complete equality and are not the targets of a huge backlash in our government right now concerning reproductive rights issues, sexual harassment suits and a whole slew of other things you'd think a lawyer would be aware of.

I guess it's fun to become successful then turn a blind eye to the roll backs and pretend we don't need Feminist Women in positions of power and government to change the blatant inequities for American females that still exist.