Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Signora Pæsior]

VERBL, yep, cis stuff was me. Glad you find it useful.

Going back to Pixie's OP, good, interesting points about how patriarchy hurts men, too!

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent.  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.

This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

First and second wave feminism might hold that men are incapable of change. Third wave does not. Third wave does not degrade men into unchangeable cavemen. We believe you can change and want you to.
No, you can't experience what its like to be a woman/female, any more than I can experience what its like to be a PoC. I'm hella white, end of story, and will never experience all the micro aggressions that are part if their lives. You're a cis man, end of story, and will never experience the micro aggressions we live with every day. It doesn't make either of us evil. It's just a fact.

I have trouble being concerned about men who dig in their heels because they feel attacked by the mere existence of feminism as a word and what it means. What are we supposed to do? Give up a term that literally means "belief in women" because men feel uncomfortable with it? No. That's not fair to us and its an awfully lot like saying that PoC should give up names and organizations that advance their cause because it makes white people sad. Stop your white crying (not you, necessarily, Pent). You, specifically, need to stop your cis man tears.
"what about us and our feelings?" is male privilege and invalidates our experiences and our very valid anger in favor of your poor precious fee-fees.

Women live in a culture dictated by men. Any discussion of how to change that requires your help and input because you perpetuate patriarchy without these discussions (in fact, cis man tears are part of the problem). Without them, you don't know how you are doing so and how to stop, or how to be an ally.

I am very aware of how men respond to this sort of thing. Discussions about feminism amply demonstrate that. Even though I'm generally a non-confrontational person, even basic and polite discussion results in monkey ass being bared on my direction. It results in men trying to intimidate me into shutting up. I'm still not sure why women have to change the name of the movement because of that. It's reminiscencent of gender roles that expect us to be submissive and to put male comfort above our own. Which we are not actually obligated to do.

I came to write a long-winded response to this even though it's late and bed is beckoning but yeah, Garbo said pretty much everything I wanted to say.

The only thing I would add is that in my experience, the best male allies are the ones who come in knowing that they're going to have to earn trust from some feminists and just, you know, quietly do that instead of whining about how Really Really Nice They Are, Why Are You Oppressing Me With Your Mistrust.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Heh, Paes has said in short form what I laid out in a fucking essay. Well I spent an age writing this so imma press post anyway.

So back to vex's point...when a man confronts these ideas, it seems like what is being asked of him is to act entirely counter to his nature.  To ask a man to change certain views that are deeply rooted is asking a lot...I guess you'd have to be a really strong man to be able to confront one's own fundamental assumptions. And it CAN be done, but I doubt in a mass amount.

With that in mind, it seems that the direct approach can only take a culture so far.  I think a real effectual change comes through slowly nipping away at the structure and tweaking this idea here and destroying that injustice there. Kind of like the parable The Camel's Nose In The Tent.  Now I agree that Feminism does do that, but it also tends to alienate men who matter by setting up an opposition.  The men who matter are ALL men, not just the few who think for themselves.

This is why I get wound up whenever feminism comes up. It always comes down to - I'm a dumbfuck who can never possibly understand because I was born with a dick and privilege and my whole brain comes with built in misogyny and, although that can never change because I'm, y'know, a male, I'm in the wrong and damn well should fucking change. Even though I can't. It's like - what the fuck do you people want from me? I need to grow a uterus before you'll quit complaining at me?

And all I end up do is yelling "For fucksake - innocent until proven guilty. Just fucking trust me already!" but there's no way to yell that without coming across like an asshole and part of the problem and reinforcing the fact that men just don't get it. Can never get it. So it always comes down to this - feminism is a conversation for women, directed at men and that's a fucking shame, cos it's never going to work and shit really does need to change. A lot of us can see that, if you'd just give us a bit of credit.

Whether it's intentional or not, feminism make men feel like they're being attacked and (if you understand men at all) that is not conducive to change. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's going to make them dig in their heels and put up more barriers.

All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

To put ideas like privilege it in terms of the BIP, the small window in your cell is a small view on the world, it's a foot square that gives you only a certain view of the territory and the horizon. Now if a certain group can only see that part of the horizon, and the people outside the cell with privilege have a bigger window that shows the view from the privileged group or person's window and a whole bigger territory that the privileged just don't see or even have to see to get by, there's going to be a difference in worldview.  Getting past that difference means breaking out of that cell and trying to get one with a bigger window, that shows the same territory as the people in the non privilege cells. To do that it takes listening to the experiences of others and thinking about the implications of the difference between windows. Simply put, people with privilege don't see the experience of the people without, but you can bet your last can of beer that those without it see representations of those with privilege and their experience.

I can see how the technical terms of feminism can be daunting,  Its alien terminology (to most people, anyway) is also somewhat an intellectualisation of anger and frustration. Which is why when I talk about feminism to guys I tend not to use technical terms, but on the other hand it would be nice for some of you to read some basics and get to grips with the terminology a little, and try and meet us all halfway, because the technical terms are something that for feminists are a shorter way of outlining some very complex ideas, and conversations we have had over and over again amongst ourselves.

You don't need to grow a uterus to get us to stop complaining. What is needed is to listen to the experience of someone or a group of people that you don't usually see the big picture of, and think on that.

Innocent until proven guilty would be nice to feel secure enough to do, but there are some assholes out there that are making it harder for women to trust men as a whole group.  You factor in that most rape, sexual assault and violence against women is by someone they KNOW rather than a stranger, the "oh he's harmless really" response to the male friend in a social group that is a little handsy with the ladies, or worse, and there's a climate of not being taken seriously over serious matters, or being seen as just complaining for complaings sake, irrational, hysterical, overreacting and so on when trying to voice a beef with something, someone or a situation. On an individual level, of course, things are and can be different, and if you aren't a guy who just writes off the view and experiences of women or POC or disabled people, or LGBT folks, respects boundaries and isn't a PUA/creepy dude/Mr Handsy/Rapey guy then cool, we aren't talking about you.

What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

My housemates, for example, are guys who treat me differently (and in a bad way) when Payne isn't around. It may not be conscious, on their part, but it's pretty fucking galling none the less. They are also lazy and generally inconsiderate jerkasses to Payne too, but they are worse with me.     I basically get ignored when I ask them to help keep the place clean, but if Payne asks, he gets a slightly better result.  I fucking hate living with these guys because I'm like a non-entity or an annoyance here, despite hauling ass to make sure that they weren't homeless or having to move in with their parents, and doing most of the work and fronting about £1300 for the move. 

If I had just said "fuck em, lazy cocksuckers" I'd have a job by now and me and Payne could most likely afford a nicer place on our own.

They may not be concious of being assholes, but you don't have to be malicious to be an inconsiderate waste of fucking space.

[Signora Pæsior]

What we need from the decent guys out there is backup, and backup that respects the non privileged's person's experience, like calling people on their sexist/racist/whateverist crap, telling Mr Handsy or Street Harrassment Guy to fucking pack it in rather than telling a woman that they are overreacting and harmless guy is harmless, and treating our frustrations as valid issues.

This is it in a nutshell. And what I find... frustrating, but also quite useful, is that when I get told I'm being too emotional, too angry, too militant, too female (though they never quite come out and say that), male feminists/allies can make my exact points and actually stand a chance of being listened to. It's fucking annoying having to pander to people's bullshit biases, but hey. If there's even a slight chance that it might help someone to realise that patriarchy is actually pretty shit I'll use all the resources I've got.

[P3nT4gR4m]

If they're refusing to understand why the term "feminism" is important, I don't know if I want them as an ally. I don't know that they can be an ally, because they're denying that we experience discrimination and say "what about me?"instead. *cue cis man tears*

If you're willing to turn away allies and swing-votes cos you're not sure if they're good enough to stand beside you then, tactically, I'm pretty sure your cause is as good as fucked. It's not about everybody getting it. Statistically, most people are idiots, they'll never get anything. They're either part of the solution or part of the problem. If you're perfectly happy to leave them as part of the problem or (even worse) make them part of the problem that they weren't to begin with by alienating them because they don't live up to some unrealistic ideal then what the fuck are you doing to solve the problem? Strikes me you're actually making it worse.

Amusing as I find that whole concept, it is kinda a shame.

Here's a suggestion - drop the whole condescending notion of "if you've never been a woman you can't possibly understand..."

1 - it alienates guys who otherwise might support your cause

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.

[P3nT4gR4m]

All we ask is that instead of kneejerking that you all just listen. Also feminists I know don't see gender difference as an essentialist/biological difference in the brain, rather as a social construct, so saying you "cannot change because penis" is usually fucking infuriating.  If people see gender differences as being hardwired, this totally causes a kneejerk in some people. If you add up unreliable books like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars ect which have entered the Pop Science sphere in the last few decades, and into the popular conciousness and these essentialist ideas give the lie that men and women are almost a different fucking species as the justification for "and this is why there are inequalities".  Seeing the gender binary as a social construct, however usually means people have to think about societal memes and tropes as not being self evident truths.

Maybe people are refusing to listen because of the kneejerk? Maybe the kneejerk is caused by the way that they're being asked to listen? Maybe a more diplomatic tack might make them more inclined to lend an ear?

But you shouldn't have to be diplomatic, right? And this is more important than getting the message across?

[Signora Pæsior]

it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, if I can't understand, then I'm not gonna try.

Game point, SP wins.

[AFK]

2 - it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong? Duh! The whole "you can't possibly understand, you're a man" thing is, quite frankly, offensive. When I, like a lot of men (and probably women too) feel offended by a particularly condescending bullshit statement, the person making it ceases to be a person and becomes a target. Not arguing the rights or wrongs of this, merely stating pragmatic fact with regards the overall mission objective. The way I see it, the end result is what's important, not that we get there by a virtuous and righteous crusade. Fight dirty, compromise some of your unrealistic principles. Accept help wherever you find it. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. You want equal rights or do you want an ideal world?

Fight smart and we'll win.

I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion but wanted to echo this sentiment, particularly #2. 

[AFK]

it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.

That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

[Signora Pæsior]

it's actually complete bullshit. You have to go through something to experience it, yes but to understand? To empathise? Fuck no. I wasn't in Auschwitz but do I understand what happened and why it was wrong?

I don't actually think that any intellectual understanding of the horrors of Auschwitz is even remotely comparable to the utter, utter terror of actually living through it. Like, at all. Even the most imaginative person's "understanding and empathy" will summon approximately 1/1999th of the feeling than an actual memory of actual lived experience.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post, because every point you've made has already been raised, countered and refuted and at this point I can only assume that you are deliberately and willfully not absorbing what Garbo, Pixie and others are telling you.

That's bullshit.  Of course we can't fully understand the actual level of emotional and physical trauma suffered.  But we CAN, intellectually, understand, as Pent said, the ideas, the fundamentals, and the nature of what was happening, why, and why it was wrong. 


Otherwise, we should go ahead and cancel every history class everywhere forever.

I think this http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html has probably the best articulation of why "we understand intellectually!" is problematic as hell:

There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil's advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women's Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that's so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.

It's this simple: as a cis man, you have never had to experience life as a woman. I can't understand why so many men get so butthurt when we tell you this, as though we're excluding you from the magical club of oppression.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

[P3nT4gR4m]

This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This has gone from a discussion about how men are also harmed by the patriarchy, to a rather interesting examination of views on language previously taken for granted, to an explanation of the following (from 3 users):

1.  Men can't understand.
2.  Men can't be trusted.
3.  Allies are not desired.  Put on the whole uniform or GTFO.
4.  "Decent men" are needed for support, which assumes that "decent" isn't the default position.
5.  Men somehow want to join the "club of the oppressed".

This conversation is now a self-parody, and cannot - in its present form - have any possible desirable outcome.  It is no longer about eglatarianism, it is now the sort of thing that is used as ammunition by people opposed to feminism.

The upside is, before it turned into a pissing contest, I got one good thing out of it (thanks, Garbo).

Perfectly fucking illustrated. Feminism is fucked and I'm not sure it's the patriarchy that's it's biggest enemy 

I disagree that feminism is fucked.  I said this conversation is fucked.

[Pæs]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

"Hey there, I see that you're currently victim to the horrors of Auschwitz. I can imagine how that must feel for you. While not a resident myself,  I am going to tell you all about Auschwitz as the local authority on Auschwitz. What's that? No, I think you're wrong about that detail. Why does that upset you? How come your side of the Auschwitz yay or nay argument is the best and I have to listen to you? If you want your situation to get better, you need to be more respectful towards people who aren't in Auschwitz when they explain Auschwitz to you.What do you mean I can't be an official Auschwitz ally if I go about misrepresenting Auschwitz and insist that the interpretation from within is somehow invalid?" to expand on the already fairly dangerous comparison.

Roger, I'm not reading that into it at all. Maybe I'm more familiar with the positions being represented here and there's a miscommunication I'm reading past. Comparing quotes of statements to those of replies and interpretations is a bit beyond the capabilities of my phone, but the thread reads like "men can absolutely be helpful and involved but cannot be primary sources on the experiences of women", "hey, fuck you for excluding me."

This!