-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How does Feminism view Men?
- Thread starter Akivah
- Start date
Feminism is not a monolithic entity; I doubt you will get a unanimous answer to your question.
Personally, as a staunch feminist, I think that there are men who are oppressors, men who are competitors, and men who are partners/allies of feminism. We are talking about an entire gender; it's impossible to be fair or accurate if you group them all under a single label like "oppressor," "competitor," "partner," etc. The male gender contains all of these subsets.
Personally, as a staunch feminist, I think that there are men who are oppressors, men who are competitors, and men who are partners/allies of feminism. We are talking about an entire gender; it's impossible to be fair or accurate if you group them all under a single label like "oppressor," "competitor," "partner," etc. The male gender contains all of these subsets.
"feminists" are not a single monolithic bloc.[dam DS got their first!] Ultimately, the only way to solve Sexism is by making men "partners", rather than treating them as either oppressors or competitors. sexism is not genetic and so although it is cliche, "we can change!". however, it is a very different kind of partnership than most people have in mind and so far as I know, there is no clear or public role for feminist men or even in the literature. that is a gap that needs to be filled as men are part of the problem and so have to also be part of the solution. this does pose a problem to how men define their masculinity and seperate it from patriarchial roles and there wil be a further sexual revolution as a result.
plus if the feminists go in strike, I won't get laid. surely thats as good a reason as any to give them whatever they want? especially if they're hot.
plus if the feminists go in strike, I won't get laid. surely thats as good a reason as any to give them whatever they want? especially if they're hot.
Uh... we view men (and women) as humans? Is there some other way to view them? 
"We" don't assign duties to "them" - equal partners negotiate duties.Equal but how do we assign various duties to them?
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Your answer seems to be stated as the way you want it to be, rather than how it is currently.
So if currently Feminism has no role for men, how can Men be viewed as partners?
"Partner" is not a "role" as much as an indicator of a particular way of engaging in interpersonal relationships... with the other possible structure being one which has a clear imbalance of power.
When we say feminism doesn't prescribe roles, we mean we don't tell people (male or female) what to do with their lives merely because they happen to have a penis or vagina. We don't say "you're a guy/gal, so you have to choose from these career/vocation and not these other ones, and you have these responsibility with child rearing instead of this one" and so forth.
Not talking about specific movements that claim to be pure feminism.
I could not choose any of the above. Feminism is more of a latent human impulse than a movement. Its part of us, so I don't think that particular movements can genuinely lay claim to own it. It appears in societies in various ways. Asking these questions about feminism is analogous to asking them about dreaming or teaching. Does this inward impulse see men as partners? No, because it is in men and women already. Does it see men as oppressive? No, because it requires men to participate. Does it see men as competitors? No, because men need it.
I could not choose any of the above. Feminism is more of a latent human impulse than a movement. Its part of us, so I don't think that particular movements can genuinely lay claim to own it. It appears in societies in various ways. Asking these questions about feminism is analogous to asking them about dreaming or teaching. Does this inward impulse see men as partners? No, because it is in men and women already. Does it see men as oppressive? No, because it requires men to participate. Does it see men as competitors? No, because men need it.
We need a 4th option.....
<all of the above & then some>
<all of the above & then some>
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I always figured it to be sex crazed walking penises.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
If someone feels that it is fair to generalize about the opposite gender, based only on gender, I don't see how they are a feminist at all. The fight is for gender equality, not a reversal of roles. The word "feminist" is not actually a good description of the movement; the man who coined it disapproved of its goals.
my understanding of feminism is limited and the "man hating feminist" is a common sterotype (which I assume your poll and OP were intending to address). to the best of my knowledge, that is not the reality.
quintessence hit the nail on the head. The problem is that "gender roles" still reflect partiarchial norms, with men being dominant and women submissive. whilst women have become more assertive because of feminism, it is unclear how men can respond to the loss of their patriarchial social dominance without it affecting self-esteem or self-worth. masculinity is a psychological, sexual as well as a cultural pattern, so it will probably take a period of experimentation before we will find a sense of masculinity that is not patriarchial and is based on gender equality.
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
I don't think that is so. Or else those in power would always be obligated to keep it or lose face, whatever the reason they had. I don't like that philosophy. Too close to "might makes right" and all the troubles that has caused. The wise know that it removes nothing from them for another to prosper, unless it was from their loss that they prospered. And I respect a man who has the bravery to face an equal world more than I respect the hurt feelings of one who is afraid of it.
I think you have to take both into the equation. men have to be won over to the idea of feminism as being in their interests and to their benifit. this is why the "man-hating" sterotype is so common as the sexual revolution challanged traditional understanding of masculinity. the problem is that these represent deep cultural changes where men come to accept women as equals rather than feeling feminism as an imposition or even artificial. your right to say that it should be a way for men to prosper and therefore develop a new sense of masculinity (perhaps without the mental health issues related to current expectations of male stocism).
Politesse
Amor Vincit Omnia
"We" were already won over. A century ago. That there is lingering sexism is not surprising, but I do not think it will be solved by coddling the precious feelings of the worst offenders. They should be taught what being a decent human being is, and from an early age. The condition has never changed, only the shape of the challenge.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I first got "educated" back in the 1980s - which wave was that? I'm probably completely out of date now, do I need to do an update course?