-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Males who identify as being feminists
- Thread starter Zekes!
- Start date
- Status
kame-sennin
Member
It seems like radical feminists got plenty of good stuff done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism
If we don't use black militants (who also got good stuff done) to defame the civil rights movement, why are we so distracted by certain comments made by a small minority of feminists?
The inherent demonizing of men as a result, often extending toward men today that genuinely want nothing more than to see women succeed alongside them. I dont blame them though, i'd be salty too.
cue race analogy in 3...2....1...
BobbyRobby
Member
devolution said:
you are resorting to bullying tactics. "don't question anything, you might figure something out. just agree with me or be ashamed."
why do you have such loyalty to a word that does a really bad job of describing what you claim is its goal?
atheism is much more clearly defined. as evidenced by feminists in this thread, we'd have to do quite a bit of reading and research to get a clear understanding of what it means.
if you ask what the feminist perspective on pornography is, you will get two completely different answers. some love it, some want to ban it.
terrdactycalsrock
Member
I've never done any research into this topic, but it has always interested me. I have a friend who believes feminism is a very wrong thing because it only supports and is fuel by one groups specific needs. I however, find that logic absolutely ridiculous and enjoy thinking of feminism as a celebration of woman, not as a fight, or a struggle, but celebration because women are wonderful creatures.
Thier mothers who work and clean and love. They are 18 year old girls who are finding out who they want to be , they are independent and very career driven. Thier anything they want to be because thier are indeed as many personalities as thier are stars in the sky. All the while being the woman they want to be or want to become. I find all of these things beautiful in thier complexities and thier elegance. So while thier is a fight for equal pay and probably for opportunities same career I find it as a celebration of the female persona
Thier mothers who work and clean and love. They are 18 year old girls who are finding out who they want to be , they are independent and very career driven. Thier anything they want to be because thier are indeed as many personalities as thier are stars in the sky. All the while being the woman they want to be or want to become. I find all of these things beautiful in thier complexities and thier elegance. So while thier is a fight for equal pay and probably for opportunities same career I find it as a celebration of the female persona
Face it Tiger..
Banned
This is some Natural's Law type shit..
XANDER CAGE
Member
Ok, sure, but in that case identifying as a feminist just means "I am interested in furthering and helping the equality of women in society". It doesn't matter that it involves debate with other feminists, because that's kind of the whole point. Besides, it's not like atheism is 100% clear cut, either. Even though at its core it involves rejecting the idea that there is a higher power, different people think and talk about atheism and being an atheist with other atheists all the time. Some atheists find theology fascinating and some find it destructive, for example.
I suppose that's a way of putting it. I think queer theory has a lot to offer as well, but there's also a lot of overlap and I think it's more of a subset than something completely distinct.
Yes, there are differences of opinion in feminism. There are feminists who label titillating things they don't like as "pornography", and label acceptable things as "erotica"), as well!
But I think that there is room to be a sex-positive feminist (which I suspect describes all of the self-identified feminists I know in this thread) while at the same time recognizing that the pornography industry has deep problems with sexism in its portrayals of women.
From your post history on the subject, I somehow doubt you are interested, but perhaps someone else will find sex-positive feminist views on pornography (and pornography produced by feminist women, for that matter) interesting.
Vermillion
Banned
It ain't Natural's Hypothesis.
I dunno man, I think muslims might disagree with you!
Seriously though, I see what you're saying. The 'radical' cloud seems to have hung over feminism for much longer than it should have and the radical elements are given much more importance than they deserve.
My only position was 'whilst you point fingers at the right and anti-feminists, don't forget to point one at radical feminists'.
Sigh.
You know, there's nothing particularly clever about the observation that any discussion about a social movement for equality will bring inevitably comparisons to the most venerable social movement for equality in American history.
Is there actually a point being made when someone shouts that out when a perfectly relevant comparison is made? Just out of curiosity.
I consider myself a feminist and champion all race and LGBT groups as well for further equality and visibility.
This had to be done:
I am a feminist and a humanist.
But not an Equalist. Pro-bending here.
I consider myself a feminist and champion all race and LGBT groups as well for further equality and visibility.
This had to be done:
Just got caught up on this show. I like it.
shanshan310
Member
solving women's issues also solves men's issues. You can't really separate them.
Poimandres
Member
The same thing could be said about a great many things. Don't fully understand it? Search for it on Google. But if you asked random people on the street to define Feminism, the standard answer would probably be something like "a movement pushing for equal rights for women". In order for more men to identify themselves as feminist the understanding of the term would need to change to "a movement pushing for equal rights for all people".
Sounds like religion
"Yes folks, line right up and try this bottle of -ism. It will solve all your problems and soothe your worries away"
shanshan310
Member
How so?
The problem with that is that feminism is "a movement pushing for equal rights for women" by definition.
I'm really not sure where these alternative (gender neutral) definitions are coming from.
Please cite all the radical feminists that are saying insane shit and are also highly regarded in the feminist community, since you're so amazingly well read and knowledgeable on the subject. I mean, you should be able to give a fuckload of links, right? Since you actually have even a fraction of a fucking clue of what you're talking about and not simply talking out of your ass. You've read a bunch of feminist works, you keep up on that shit and are very knowledgable on the subject. Please don't post a bunch of obscure livejournal stuff or something that's been disowned by most prominent feminists, or else you'll get laughed out this conversation and ANY further conversation on the subject.
Let's do this. Go.
Take your medicine and sit back down.
Any word that has lost its meaning isn't worth using. If no one can actually understand what you mean by the word without an explanation, then you should just trash it. Give them the explanation instead.
If you disagree, then think about the fact that both a smart, well-rounded person who wants equal rights for both genders and an obnoxious person who wants males to lose their rights can both identify with the same exact label, feminism. How does it then make sense that you want to use that label?
Edit: Oh fuck I had bad timing
If you disagree, then think about the fact that both a smart, well-rounded person who wants equal rights for both genders and an obnoxious person who wants males to lose their rights can both identify with the same exact label, feminism. How does it then make sense that you want to use that label?
Edit: Oh fuck I had bad timing
IrishNinja
Member
i'll go with third wave feminism, personally. could be wrong but i think you're characterizing modern feminism as 2nd wave, a common misconception.
# of people in this thread asking for this: 0
Devolution
Member
So you can't supply as with a myriad of radical feminist theory and sources that have apparently damaged the credibility of feminism? Thought so.
Riposte
Member
So many jokes... only one NeoGAF account.
I cannot find a single gender-neutral definition of feminism in any dictionary. The Wiki page starts as such:
Wiki said:
And that is consistent with every single accepted definition that I have found.
Nah, it's more that I can't be arsed to indulge you and your boyfriend. That post was a joke, just a pile of hormones and preconceptions. I don't have time for that noise.
BobbyRobby
Member
bigjiantrobut said:
if the definition of the word is so vague and fluid, why would i want to use it to identify myself? it's not a useful word. it doesn't accurately describe me or anybody.
i admire your zeal on the subject of feminism, and think you are a good person. i've followed a lot of links that you and other feminists have posted here. it's just that so much of what i've read and heard about feminism makes things so needlessly convoluted.
using pornography as an example. to me, it is a very simple issue.
a person can do whatever they want with their own body, and make contracts with consenting adults. if someone wants to perform a sex act for money, they should be allowed. a person's body, a person's choice.
barring isolated, extenuating circumstances, that seems like a good policy to me.
i don't need to see what some group thinks about the issue. i don't need to learn about the history of the feminists that started to accept pornography, or cite what some notable professor has said on the subject. it's an issue that I can form my own opinion on using logic.
if someone is able to point out a flaw in my logic, their allegiance has nothing to do with it.
only if you solve em right.
The arrogant tone of saying you can solve everyone's problem, perchance. I doubt feminist could even identify the problems happening in my community for example, much less pull out the perfect solutiuon out of their handbook.
It's an ideology that believes that elevating or focusing on a few specific issues can solve all issues, just like religion or any other -ism.
Solving a problem already means it is solved right. If it is solved wrong, it is unsolved
RawkHawk2010
Member
I think I'm only a feminist from a sexual perspective - the mainstream "male = dominant, female = submissive" gender roles have grown BRAIN-NUMBINGLY STALE in recent centuries and I don't like it.
I mean, *I* want to be the sex slave. Less creative work on my end and everything!
I mean, *I* want to be the sex slave. Less creative work on my end and everything!
Douche McBaggins The 3rd
Junior Member
Can't be a feminist. They're responsible for Global Laming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr162OZ2Z0w&feature=related
Bill Burr. Yeah. I can agree with the surcharge thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr162OZ2Z0w&feature=related
Bill Burr. Yeah. I can agree with the surcharge thing.
IrishNinja
Member
not to cherry pick, but it's kind've a loaded ideology, and paragraph a few down from that was the one i was referencing (shouldve specified that in retrospect):
it's a very broad umbrella, and while im not very versed on the current scene/thought, my anecdotal experience with classes, readings & discussion with feminists has almost entirely been about gender/patriarchy and pretty universal problems such as internalized oppression resulting from such.
i get that this isn't overly well-known, and sadly, more often than not when the subject is brought up with conservative friends of mine they're right on NOW and stuff that hasn't been relevant in over a genration - but what i think part of what Timedog was on about was that researching the subject leaves you with the impression that these ideas are absolutely inseparable, and claiming otherwise leaves one assuming you're using an older definition from a prior movement.
he (and devo here as well) have fair points, though - every ideology has a handful of loud radicals but iv seen few subjects past feminism that have that troupe wheeled out nearly as often, and no one can really name any actual sources, just vaguely discredit the movement with shadows and strawmen.
shanshan310
Member
woah woah. That wasn't what I mean at all. I wasn't trying to be arrogant, nor did I ever say I could solve everyone's problems. I said that solving men's and women's social problems went hand in hand. You can't fix one without fixing the other. Thus why feminism stands for equality I guess. Can all societal issues really be solved? I doubt it, but I'd like to think we can make things better.
XANDER CAGE
Member
Pretty much every possible ideology or identity anyone could ascribe to themselves is equally "vague and fluid". The ongoing debate between feminists is no different from the debates that will likely go on for eternity between christians and other christians, atheists and other atheists, and Beatles fans and other Beatles fans. Assuming that identifying as a feminist locks oneself out of thinking for themselves and having different ideas about how to advance women's treatment in society is a tad obtuse.
Moral Panic
Member
Not really. Depends on what you mean by solve. Plus not all men's and women's issues are necessarily intertwined.
Example:
"Low amount of women as CEO's"
Solution:
"Every CEO must be a woman"
Not really a solution to men's issues is it? But certainly a solution to women's ones.
Further Example:
"High suicide rate among men"
Solution:
????????
Solving this issue for men won't "solve" anything for women.
I think Dave is being unproductive by bringing up radical feminists who are either irrelevant to movement and academic feminist thought today, or were marginal even decades ago, and I think it is annoying when he does it. And I realize that it was predictable that he would come to this thread advocating "radical feminism" as the bogeyman for why feminism has the reputation it does.
But - and this is why it was predictable - he has talked about this in the past and brought up examples. He just puts far too much time and emphasis on it.
If women are unequal to men in society (and this is sort of a bedrock feminist belief), then a social movement that achieves equality for women will by definition be a social movement to create equality between men and women, or equality for everyone.
Poimandres' alternate definition is perfectly accurate in terms of goals.
And for what it's worth, studies in masculinities (especially these books), which study men as men, comport very well with existing feminist thought. I don't know that I'd necessarily call it "feminism" (though I wouldn't quibble if someone wanted to), but it does have a lot of the same solutions and it comports very well with feminist analyses of women's issues. In short, the same issues that plague women are things that cause many of the issues we see in men's lives, even if men as a group benefit marginally relative to women.
I dont really consider anyone a feminist as the label has fractured to such a staggering extent and into so many completely contradictory positions that it just doesnt mean anything anymore.
People can have various viewpoints on different issues, and its all a bit too complex for a single catch all term. I feel similar about the terms left wing and right wing, though even they still seem to maintain a lot more ideological consistency in language than feminism does.
Do I believe that women should have equal economic opportunity at all levels to men? Absolutely. Do I believe that all career paths should be open to people? Absolutely. Do I deplore the treatment of women under law in countries such as Saudi Arabia with its ban on driving? Damned straight I do.
Do I believe that its right for some women to tell other women what to do with their sexuality because anything to do with sexual expression is patriarchal objectification? Heck. No. But those people would absolutely label themselves feminists. And theyre not as radical or fringe as some people in this thread are trying to present either if I go and read the gender section in a mainstream newspaper such as the Guardian its overwhelmingly sex-negative feminists and rad fems writing there.
People can have various viewpoints on different issues, and its all a bit too complex for a single catch all term. I feel similar about the terms left wing and right wing, though even they still seem to maintain a lot more ideological consistency in language than feminism does.
Do I believe that women should have equal economic opportunity at all levels to men? Absolutely. Do I believe that all career paths should be open to people? Absolutely. Do I deplore the treatment of women under law in countries such as Saudi Arabia with its ban on driving? Damned straight I do.
Do I believe that its right for some women to tell other women what to do with their sexuality because anything to do with sexual expression is patriarchal objectification? Heck. No. But those people would absolutely label themselves feminists. And theyre not as radical or fringe as some people in this thread are trying to present either if I go and read the gender section in a mainstream newspaper such as the Guardian its overwhelmingly sex-negative feminists and rad fems writing there.
Sorry, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that all feminists take a sole interest in women and women alone, nor am I suggesting that feminism in it's entirety ignores or suppresses issues that affect men as well as women. I'm just saying that 'feminism' as a concept is deeply rooted in gender and is not some 'equality for all' thing that has been misconstrued as an 'equality for women' thing. It's an 'equality for women' thing that has mushroomed (in some areas) into 'equality for all'.
I wouldn't even mention it if it wasn't roundly ignored every time the subject 'why does feminism have a bad rep' is raised.
I don't doubt this in the least. Perhaps it would be easier if we had more of a neutral term that expressed the concept of 'equality for all'.
BobbyRobby
Member
i would argue that the examples you have given are not "equally" as vague and fluid as the definition of a feminist.
if you believe in a god, you are a theist. if you don't, you are an atheist. if you are unsure, you are agnostic.
you could argue that there are degrees of Beatles fans, but i'm sure it would be pretty easy to come to a consensus on what constitutes a Bealtes fan. say, you like a majority of the songs they made.
i'll grant you christian. i think it is a poor descriptor.
reposted from irish ninja,
how could you say the definition of an atheist is equally as vague as that?
anaron said:
what about people who identify themselves as feminist who've done bad things?
shanshan310
Member
Well no, but many issues are intertwined. Traditional masculine/ feminine roles still dictate how we interact with the world, how we are expected to behave and what jobs we are likely to choose.
This right here.
That said, I don't tend to apply the label to myself. Not out of any shame at the idea (I have none), but simply because I'm extremely cautious to apply any kind of -ism label to myself without a lot of very careful thought, and I'm still in that process. Especially when they're an -ism in which I'm the privileged party. I am certainly a supporter of feminist goals and the movement as a whole, just as I am with many such movements, though.
But, it was actually neogaf that opened my eyes to how right many of the current feminist ideas are (like the scathingly named rape-culture, as well as less scary but still a bit frightening ones like victim-blaming, and more academic terms like patriarchy or privilege). It was a thread about a girl who got gang raped outside her high school prom and it was filled with some of the most vile assumptions about her culpability in her own violation, before any real information had filtered through the foggy lense that is the media, that I had to question pretty much any belief I had about these things right down to the very core. Of course, it turns out it was people she knew (or at least some of them were) and that they beat her unconscious and held her down before they took turns with her.
And still people defended their prior unfounded assumptions. Some even defended believing she had any responsibility in the matter.
It was a pretty disgusting thread overall and it really changed my views on a lot of this stuff. So I've spent a lot of time since then learning more about it.
I actually think that the problem with feminism as a movement isn't anything to do with extreme radical feminists (frankly, if you buy that they represent the mainstream of feminist thought you're drinking some dirty kool-aid). I think it's that no one's really figured out how to communicate the fairly academia-driven ideas about patriarchy and rape culture and privilege to a broader audience that's not terribly receptive to hearing that they've been doing something hurtful all their lives.
XANDER CAGE
Member
The same way that one person who thinks Sgt Pepper's is the best Beatles album and someone who thinks that The White Album is the best Beatles album are both Beatles fans. They both care about something different about the Beatles, but they both consider the Beatles their favorite band. One atheist could find the Sistine Chapel breathtaking, another could consider it pretty, but ultimately empty. Consider the pretty much constant debate surrounding "zero tolerance" as a part of atheism, or whether or not atheists find Richard Dawkins a complete genius or kind of a prick (or both). Someone who considers themselves a feminist could care a great deal about the way women are portrayed in media and not even have an opinion on issues of color or ecology. Many feminists have different opinions on gendered slurs, and whether or not using them is empowering or destructive.
Beatles fans like the Beatles, atheists reject the notion that a higher power watches over us, Christians believe that Christ is our savior (sometimes our lord and savior!) and feminists believe that society gives women the short straw much of the time. Fractured, sure, but it's still an identity.
---
P.S I am super giddy that there was a mod watching the sitcom thread and this thread or at least knew that I love to wrassle in feminism threads, my new tag is beyond perfect
cutmeamango
Banned
I'm the best feminist.
The difficulty I have, is that I think there are certain behaviours innate to each gender. I don't think there is a need to normalise everything quite as much as some people preach - I don't want an androgynous mush of society where everything is the same. Which is often what gets brought up when these kinds of discussion happen.
At the moment I also think equality of sexes is not too bad, and much more focus should be put on equality of society generally. Ruling class is still the ruling class - even more so these days. Access to the right schools, fast track to positions of power. Doesn't matter whether you are a man or woman so much as what family you are born into. I disagree with the idea that its a patriarchal system. Its a system where power is defended by those in power. I don't think there is pressure to keep that male, as much as it is to 'keep it in the family'.
Half and half
Member
I dunno, it's just another label. I feel that actions are important not self-proclaimed labels.
It is deeply rooted in gender issues, but the human society does not work as two separate halfs, but as one whole consisting of two halfs. Therefore problems that affects women DO affect you as well, sometimes rather directly: take for example those that grow up with a single mother and without a father. Or those that have dire pressure from other males that their hobbies and interests should be out of the the same limited "male-A-Ok" pool that they have chosen, and if you do not comform to that, you are either "a pussy", or "gay" or just straight-up weird.
With gender equality, at a certain point, males COULD and will be finally allowed to relax just a little. Because being a strong male and being a rigid male is not the same thing, yet it can looks similar from the outside. And that is just one of the many issues that actually directly affect males as well - many would be solved indirectly by improving the situation of females everywhere around us.
- Status