Feminist only: how important is it to "sell" feminism to others?

[MysticSang'ha]

It's open season on feminism again on RF. If it isn't Muslim women, LDS Christians, or queers being targets for the grumbling, it's how feminists are ruining life for people.

It's been asked before, but let's get some fresh voices here. How much does feminism need to sell itself to others, say for instance, men? To be considered legitimate? Or welcoming?

Must there be a minimum of men present to be legitimate in the eyes of the whole? Must men be happy with what women and other feminist men are saying?

I once read an onion article that had me giggling...the article title read something along the lines of "All Male Feminist Panel Feels Confident They Can Finally Do Something Worthwhile"...or something to that effect. It made a hilarious but relevant point. And with Emma Watsons "He for She" campaign with the UN, she and other feminists who have utilized the lean in approach to make feminism more palatable for men has been seen as the ideal rhetoric.

But that also begs the question: Must ALL feminist rhetoric be palatable to men's sensitivities?

Is this the most impactful road to gender equality? Or are we simply following the same road of thinking by making sure the men in the room are happy and content with what we want for our rights and protections? How is this any different with what society expects for men and women? That men must have the final say in what is worthwhile or not?

Feminists only, please.

Signed,
A woman who gives a damn what men experience, but not at my own expense as a woman.

 

[Kirran]

I can't think of an example where feminist rhetoric could be unpalatable to the sensitivities of men who believe in gender equality.

If it was unpalatable to all men, then it would be more female supremacism, perhaps. Something like that.

Can you think of an example?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I can't think of an example where feminist rhetoric could be unpalatable to the sensitivities of men who believe in gender equality.

If it was unpalatable to all men, then it would be more female supremacism, perhaps. Something like that.

Can you think of an example?

Some men at RF think terms like "male privilege" or "male gaze" is weaponized or divisive rhetoric. Coming from men who are sincere in their fight for gender equality but don't identify as feminists. I myself have been told that I personally with my tone have shown "why so many people hate feminism."

On RF.

Personal feelings aside, I tend to wonder, is feminism changing anything toward gender equality if my job is to make my language more comforting and welcoming to the men around me? If men get ticked off if I say something like "male privilege" to describe a socio-cultural phenomenon, and if the same people roll their eyes if I flip the script talking about sex-discrimination against women and tell me I'm "playing the victim", then how worth my time is it to try to even work with people who hostile to acknowledging inequality in the first place?

So, should feminism try to sell itself to people who balk at the terminology that is useful in socio-cultural descriptions and definitions?

 

[dust1n]

Being knowledgeable, courteous and understanding is an advantage in any situation, but I'm not sure there is much value in attempting to convince someone adamantly against feminism that they should change their beliefs. No reason to get bogged down when they are enough people out there on the fence about it who would benefit more time spent helping or addressing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Being knowledgeable, courteous and understanding is an advantage in any situation, but I'm not sure there is much value in attempting to convince someone adamantly against feminism that they should change their beliefs. No reason to get bogged down when they are enough people out there on the fence about it who would benefit more time spent helping or addressing.

Oh let me reiterate that courtesy is good.

But at what expense?

Example: someone is on the fence about feminism, saying they desire gender equality, but they don't like how feminism has "gone too far", and they cite the descriptors brought up as evidence of feminism "going too far." They feel that if they want to challenge the notion of women not taking enough responsibility for their sexual assault, and are met with resistance, that suddenly feminism has become fascist or anti-male.

We recently had an issue with a man at our local group who interrupted everybody at the meetings, who said that he hated the term "privilege", and who said that feminism should be more open to men like him. Ironically, we already had two cis men who had been facilitators, but this man felt that more "aggressive" men like him was needed for us to realize our full potential (his words).

He also said that if we ran across death threats from men, that we needed to be reminded that not all men make death threats, and that we needed to make that clear at our meetings.

It got weirder after that. He began telling us that our definition of feminism was all wrong. That we were too focused on women's issues. We wound up after many complaints of his aggressive comments about us as a group and individuals told him that he shouldn't attend. He said we were making a big mistake.

It happens. More often than not. Not enough to be a whole heck of a lot, and I would go so far to say less than 10% of the cis men who arrive to the meetings wind up having issues with our focus and our rhetoric.

Here at RF though, it's more often than not brought up as an issue. Which is why I wanted to discuss the relevance of how much we need to "sell" feminism to people who are on the fence, or to people who say they are on the fence about feminism.

 

[Iti oj]

i engage in feminist activities every day on FB, RF and at work. My wife considers me her feminist influence and my family is excited for me to have daughter because of it.

 

[Sunstone]

Speaking of feminism as a political and social movement, then it should be as accommodating as it can be while still getting something positive done. You don't get very far with movements by adopting a notion that you should start alienating allies because they ain't pure enough.

But speaking of feminism as an ideology, then it should be as rigorously intellectually honest as it possibly can be. Telling the truth is what gives ideologies their value.

There's a tension between those two things, and it's a tension that's not easily resolved. But that's one reason good intellectuals don't usually make good politicians, and vice versa.

 

[dust1n]

Oh let me reiterate that courtesy is good.

But at what expense

Hmm, well certainly not at the expense of say, bodily harm or verbal abuse. Perhaps, worst case scenario, just enough to exit to situation.

Example: someone is on the fence about feminism, saying they desire gender equality, but they don't like how feminism has "gone too far", and they cite the descriptors brought up as evidence of feminism "going too far." They feel that if they want to challenge the notion of women not taking enough responsibility for their sexual assault, and are met with resistance, that suddenly feminism has become fascist or anti-male

Yeah, I would consider that someone not on the fence about feminism. I would focus in on sincerity. If some appears to antagonize things, while stating they are for feminism, or whatever, I'd disengage for the sake of brevity. Someone looking to learn about some issue doesn't generally approach it with hostility and hoping to establish a preformulated mindset.

We recently had an issue with a man at our local group who interrupted everybody at the meetings, who said that he hated the term "privilege", and who said that feminism should be more open to men like him. Ironically, we already had two cis men who had been facilitators, but this man felt that more "aggressive" men like him was needed for us to realize our full potential (his words).

Yeah, that's really uncomfortable. But at least this person basically identified themselves quickly as counterproductive.

He also said that if we ran across death threats from men, that we needed to be reminded that not all men make death threats, and that we needed to make that clear at our meetings.

As if the obvious needed to reiterated every twenty-five seconds.

 

[Sunstone]

I think any comprehensive answer to the OP would necessarily involved defining the nature and goals of feminism -- something no small group of people is likely to be in a position to do. For instance, is a main goal of feminism dismantling the patriarchy? Then feminists will need all the allies they can get. But, almost alternatively, is it more important to raise consciousness? Then feminists need to stick to the truth even more than they need allies. Of course, both can be done to some extent at the same time, but there is a conflict between those two goals. So there are trade-offs to be made.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Speaking of feminism as a political and social movement, then it should be as accommodating as it can be while still getting something positive done. You don't get very far with movements by adopting a notion that you should start alienating allies because they ain't pure enough.

Allies? Or potential allies? Or both?

But speaking of feminism as an ideology, then it should be as rigorously intellectually honest as it possibly can be. Telling the truth is what gives ideologies their value.

True, but then being intellectually honest tends to be received as being unkind. On one hand, I can understand the gut emotional reaction from men when hearing the term "patriarchy". On the other hand, to avoid using the term in education to describe oppressive systems against women for fear of offending somebody is compromising integrity for political expansion.

There's a tension between those two things, and it's a tension that's not easily resolved. But that's one reason good intellectuals don't usually make good politicians, and vice versa.

I can't ever see myself running for office. LOL

I do see myself as an educator and an activist. Most of my feminism comes from the trenches with the academics giving me a language and terminology that is adequate enough to convey what I experience.

If people IMO gripe about academic feminism, if it's not friendly to men enough, I disagree. Academic Feminism in my experience is far far more hostile to women of color than they are to men. It's a Big White Feminist Front. Queer friendly. Trans friendly (sort of). And gender friendly. But definitely not color friendly.

 

[Sunstone]

Both allies and potential allies -- movements need as many people in them as possible. But consciousness raising in practice weeds out some.

 

[Kirran]

Some men at RF think terms like "male privilege" or "male gaze" is weaponized or divisive rhetoric. Coming from men who are sincere in their fight for gender equality but don't identify as feminists. I myself have been told that I personally with my tone have shown "why so many people hate feminism."

On RF.

Personal feelings aside, I tend to wonder, is feminism changing anything toward gender equality if my job is to make my language more comforting and welcoming to the men around me? If men get ticked off if I say something like "male privilege" to describe a socio-cultural phenomenon, and if the same people roll their eyes if I flip the script talking about sex-discrimination against women and tell me I'm "playing the victim", then how worth my time is it to try to even work with people who hostile to acknowledging inequality in the first place?

So, should feminism try to sell itself to people who balk at the terminology that is useful in socio-cultural descriptions and definitions?

I would say that, as these are real issues, they need to be raised, that's it. Don't go about it aggressively, or obnoxiously, etc, but I think it's ignorant to say that this is you "playing the victim". As you say, these people are hostile to even acknowledging inequality, and so are hardly going to be recruited to the feminist movement in any case.

I don't believe feminism should limit its terminology to such an extent that it leaves out real issues.

Go ahead, you describe socio-cultural phenomena, more power to you.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thanks.

This conversation helps give me some perspective. Very helpful.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

Unfortunately, I think the word "feminism" is associated with extremism or radicalism to many people, so they automatically turn their brains off and don't even participate in the discussion. Also, it seems that as much as feminism advocates equality among the sexes, the movement will ultimately be slanted to some degree to interact with and support females first and foremost. Not that that's a bad thing, but I can understand how it would turn off people who's take on equality is to remain absolutely "bi-partisan".

 

[Midnight Rain]

It's open season on feminism again on RF. If it isn't Muslim women, LDS Christians, or queers being targets for the grumbling, it's how feminists are ruining life for people.

It's been asked before, but let's get some fresh voices here. How much does feminism need to sell itself to others, say for instance, men? To be considered legitimate? Or welcoming?

Must there be a minimum of men present to be legitimate in the eyes of the whole? Must men be happy with what women and other feminist men are saying?

I once read an onion article that had me giggling...the article title read something along the lines of "All Male Feminist Panel Feels Confident They Can Finally Do Something Worthwhile"...or something to that effect. It made a hilarious but relevant point. And with Emma Watsons "He for She" campaign with the UN, she and other feminists who have utilized the lean in approach to make feminism more palatable for men has been seen as the ideal rhetoric.

But that also begs the question: Must ALL feminist rhetoric be palatable to men's sensitivities?

Is this the most impactful road to gender equality? Or are we simply following the same road of thinking by making sure the men in the room are happy and content with what we want for our rights and protections? How is this any different with what society expects for men and women? That men must have the final say in what is worthwhile or not?

Feminists only, please.

Signed,
A woman who gives a damn what men experience, but not at my own expense as a woman.

A few things I have noticed that are more effective than others.

1) Not being overly aggressive. Being the right amount of aggressive is good. But I recently saw a video about a group of women protesting an MRA meting. I am sure that the video was edited to be one sided but in reality the behavior was rather ghastly. I don't have any specific problems with the MRA as a concept but the follow through and general populace of these groups tend to lean towards misogyny In any case there were women that were being outright outlandish to the picture of feminism that I have always adopted. We don't need to scream through microphones outside of a MRA meting. We need to sit in with the MRA meeting and share our input. Work together with the reasonable MRA members and intellectually combat those that are unreasonable. I have always been of the mind that if you have to scream to get your point across it isn't' worth getting across. Others often see it that way as well and it causes them to back away from what we have to say before they even process the merit of the ideas.

2) I think that we could broaden the base of what we consider to be feminism or embrace an MRA like counterpart movement that is not "against" but "together". Feminism fights for women's rights and there are injustices against men that don't have anything to do with Feminism that should be addressed without being fought by feminists. The problem is that the MRA has proven itself incapable of really doing that. So it is mostly wishful thinking that we had a productive counterpart that would work with feminists.

 

[Kirran]

2) I think that we could broaden the base of what we consider to be feminism or embrace an MRA like counterpart movement that is not "against" but "together". Feminism fights for women's rights and there are injustices against men that don't have anything to do with Feminism that should be addressed without being fought by feminists. The problem is that the MRA has proven itself incapable of really doing that. So it is mostly wishful thinking that we had a productive counterpart that would work with feminists.

Essentially, what you seem to want is a combined group, composed of men, women etc who are fighting for equal gender rights. This if, of course, what feminism is, but a lot of people get put off by the name and the image, both of which infer it's for women in particular, when really it's about equality.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Essentially, what you seem to want is a combined group, composed of men, women etc who are fighting for equal gender rights. This if, of course, what feminism is, but a lot of people get put off by the name and the image, both of which infer it's for women in particular, when really it's about equality.

Historically feminists would not fight for men's issues unless it also affected women's issues. Feminism has evolved to develop this equality approach (thought it has had some form of it from the beginning but now we understand it isn't simply raising women up but a far more complex mesh of sociological, psychological, biological and even economic factors). And I wouldn't advocate there being a combined group that simply absorbs feminism but a partner group.

Also we have to look at feminism(ideology/philosphy) as a separate entity than feminism (functional movement) as the first can be described within the parameters of goals while the second is also held accountable by actions of groups that are not perfect and therefore have done things (few but still there) that have reflected badly upon the whole movement that has been used by misogynists to bring the whole movement into question. But we have come a long way. And I do not want to see the name changed from feminists to equalists or some other term as has been proposed in the past as the core of the movement comes from this crazy radical idea that women are people. And we don't need to forget that is the idea that wrought this movement.

 

[Kirran]

Historically feminists would not fight for men's issues unless it also affected women's issues. Feminism has evolved to develop this equality approach (thought it has had some form of it from the beginning but now we understand it isn't simply raising women up but a far more complex mesh of sociological, psychological, biological and even economic factors). And I wouldn't advocate there being a combined group that simply absorbs feminism but a partner group.

Also we have to look at feminism(ideology/philosphy) as a separate entity than feminism (functional movement) as the first can be described within the parameters of goals while the second is also held accountable by actions of groups that are not perfect and therefore have done things (few but still there) that have reflected badly upon the whole movement that has been used by misogynists to bring the whole movement into question. But we have come a long way. And I do not want to see the name changed from feminists to equalists or some other term as has been proposed in the past as the core of the movement comes from this crazy radical idea that women are people. And we don't need to forget that is the idea that wrought this movement.

While all very good points, the separation into two separate groups would both exclude those, such as myself, who don't identify with the gender binary, and also encourage the less-equalist aspects of men's rights groups, as we see today.

 

[Midnight Rain]

While all very good points, the separation into two separate groups would both exclude those, such as myself, who don't identify with the gender binary, and also encourage the less-equalist aspects of men's rights groups, as we see today.

An umbrella group that oversee's both wouldn't be a bad thing but I think it would be important to have a remained identity of feminism. I think that, if nothing else, historically it would be important. Though the counter points to this already is well known as I stated in my first post, it was wishful thinking.

Though for those that don't self identify as either exclusively male or female have a long list of challenges in their life. This specific challenge should hopefully be overcome with a level of acceptance from both sides and usually is ultimately dependent on the individuals involved (especially within the roles of leadership). Groups tend to be more focused to be more effective. Large broad categories tend to get less done. Which is one reason why it is good to have several support groups that can work together. For example feminists and LGBTQ groups have worked together to get rights for lesbians, anti-rape, anti-discrimination and other such laws passed.

Now I feel I must make a distinction. When I say that feminism should remain feminism I think that they are still working for equality and should still support equality but that there simply may be more effective and motivated groups that are working on specific problems. I think feminism should work WITH these groups in the ultimate goal to always promote equality. This branches from gender equality all the way through racial, ethnic, religious and sexual orientation. The list could go on.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm going to offer my opinion here, with 1 quick clarification;
Most of you know, 'feminist' is a tag I wear a little uncomfortably, but am slowly getting used to. I'm somewhat ignorant of much of the theory still though, so my perspective is almost that of an outsider. I would (and still do) identify as an egalitarian. My ideas about the best paths to equality have changed over the last few years, partly because of this site, it must be said.

Feminism doesn't NEED to sell itself to anyone, be they men, or particular groups of women (gender, sexuality, socio-economic, or any other). But a diverse group will have different sub-groups within it, and feminism is obviously that, so issues of perspective and communication are unavoidable to some degree. When you start factoring in additional groups from outside (such as egalitarians) it's gonna get really tough, really quick.

For feminism, I think, the issue is more about strategic decisions.
Are the aims of feminism helped by allying with egalitarians (for example). I'd say in certain situations they are, but certainly not in all cases.
In the situations where the aims of feminism and egalitarianism align, is feminist doctrine likely to cause issues. I'd say generally not, unless it's of the extreme variety. Note though, that I'm not suggesting some won't find it off-putting, or annoying. I'm simply saying that no egalitarian is going to stop believing in equal pay for equal work simply because a feminist marching with him offers up 'male privilege' as a reason.

I think the simplest approach to working together is simply to come together where there is common cause, and for that particular battle (march/protest/whatever) focus less on how things have reached the point they have and more on what is wrong, and the required corrective actions, since that is likely where there is the most concordance. But as an overall comment, that's purely strategic. Feminism is feminism, egalitarianism is egalitarianism. They're not the same, although they can (I damn well hope) be complimentary to a large degree.