nadel@aspen.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) (06/02/89)
I would like to know your feelings on wether a man can ever be considered
a feminist, and if so what exactly defines feminism.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines feminism as "a militant advocacy of
equal rights and status for women." I disagree with this definition especially
the term militant, which, from the same dictionary, is defined as "fighting or
warring." This definition implies violence as well as a derogatory. Militant
conjures up images, at least for me, of the PLO and other terrorist
organizations. Although perhaps militant/fighting/warring can be viewed as
the underdog 'fighting' for a just cause, as feminism is.
I have been told by different people, men and women, that "men will never
fully understand," which I agree with; however, whites can never fully
understand the plight of the blacks earlier in our nation's history and, yet,
many prominent whites helped in the struggle to correct injustices.
As a male supporter of women's rights, I often get in this arguement.
Being the only male in some upper level "female studies" courses at the Univ.
of Maryland, I constantly find myself being besieged with little or no
defense as to why I have a "right" to take women's studies courses and if
I can truely call myself a feminist, or even a supporter of women's rights.
I thank you greatly for your input and look forward to seeing this
newsgroup doing well.
- Chris Williamson
cwilliam@umd5.umd.educme@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Carl Ellison) (06/05/89)
In article <4960@umd5.umd.edu>, cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Williamson) writes: > > As a male supporter of women's rights, I often get in this arguement. > Being the only male in some upper level "female studies" courses at the Univ. > of Maryland, I constantly find myself being besieged with little or no > defense as to why I have a "right" to take women's studies courses and if > I can truely call myself a feminist, or even a supporter of women's rights. > - Chris Williamson > cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu The question seems moot to me. You may call yourself a feminist just as I call myself one. I don't know your reasons. Mine are simple: 1. I have a daughter. 2. When I look back at women I agree with and those I disagree with, the former tend to be fiminists and the latter traditionalists. But the real point is: you can call yourself whatever you please. That's your choice. On the other hand, the label you (or I) choose to use does not generate acceptance by any group of women who choose to use the same label. If it's this that you're looking for (as I was once), I would suggest you re-examine your motives. --Carl Ellison UUCP:: cme@cloud9.Stratus.COM SNail:: Stratus Computer; 55 Fairbanks Blvd.; Marlborough MA 01752 Disclaimer:: (of course)
gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) (06/06/89)
In article <4960@umd5.umd.edu> cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu (Christopher Williamson) writes: > The American Heritage Dictionary defines feminism as "a militant advocacy of >equal rights and status for women." I disagree with this definition especially I prefer to use Webster's dictionary. His definition is: "feminism 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." BTW IMO definition 1: is the way most feminists see themselves, but definition 2: is the way they really are... > As a male supporter of women's rights, I often get in this arguement. >Being the only male in some upper level "female studies" courses at the Univ. >of Maryland, I constantly find myself being besieged with little or no >defense as to why I have a "right" to take women's studies courses and if No matter what you'll do these women will not want to see you around... >I can truely call myself a feminist, or even a supporter of women's rights. Why does an equal rights person like you waste his time with people who don't want to treat you as equal? I think I miss something... > - Chris Williamson Hillel gazit@cs.duke.edu "Even if one cares passionately and believes in the validity of some Movement, one can be, at best, only a fellow traveler; and that smacks of sycophancy." -- Harlan Ellison
druid@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Andrew Kerne) (06/07/89)
I was hoping to hear some women talk about this. I don't think that men in general have the right to say what is feminist -- it is something essentially defined by women. So men, please, please, sit with your egos quietly for a little while, at least until some women have spoken about this. Otherwise, the connection between soc.feminism and feminism will be approaching non-existent.
druid@robotics.jpl.nasa.GOV (Andrew Kerne) (06/07/89)
I was hoping to hear some women talk about this. I don't think that men are in general have the right to say what is feminist -- it is something essentially defined by women. So men, please, please, sit with your egos quietly for a little while, at least until some women have spoken about this. Otherwise, the connection between soc.feminism and feminism will be approaching non-existent.
drc@beach.cis.ufl.EDU (David Cabana) (06/07/89)
[Apologies if this one appears more than once -- I had some trouble sending it out... --Cindy] In article <4960@umd5.umd.edu> cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu (Christopher Williamson) writes: > > I would like to know your feelings on wether a man can ever be considered >a feminist, and if so what exactly defines feminism. ... some stuff omitted ... > I have been told by different people, men and women, that "men will never >fully understand," which I agree with; however, whites can never fully >understand the plight of the blacks earlier in our nation's history and, yet >many prominent whites helped in the struggle to correct injustices. > If one accepts the position that a man cannot be a feminist, then one accepts the position that a person's gender can render that person incapable of holding (even perhaps understanding) certain beliefs. This is sexism, pure and simple. Similarly, the claim that a person is incapable of understanding something because of that person's race is racism, pure and simple. > As a male supporter of women's rights, I often get in this arguement. >Being the only male in some upper level "female studies" courses at the Univ. >of Maryland, I constantly find myself being besieged with little or no >defense as to why I have a "right" to take women's studies courses and if >I can truely call myself a feminist, or even a supporter of women's rights. It strikes me as ironic that (presumed) feminists, of all people, would question your right to take a class because of your sex. Bigotry has many forms. David Cabana
charleen@ads.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) (06/07/89)
In article <16890@paris.ics.uci.edu> druid@robotics.jpl.nasa.GOV (Andrew Kerne) writes: > >I was hoping to hear some women talk about this. >I don't think that men are in general have the right to say what is >feminist -- it is something essentially defined by women. > >So men, please, please, sit with your egos quietly for a little while, >at least until some women have spoken about this. Otherwise, the >connection between soc.feminism and feminism will be approaching >non-existent. Mr. Kerne, I cannot think of a gentle way to say this, so I will be blunt: You are out of line. The newgroup proposal and subsequent discussion clearly stated that both men and women are welcome to post to soc.feminism; further, that it is acceptable to question feminism as a belief system (whereas in a group such as soc.motss, it is *not* acceptable to question homosexuality). Now you come along and suggest that not only do men not have the right to discuss feminism here, but that they should shut up so that women can be heard. If women are not being heard, it is because women are not posting, not because men can't "sit quietly with their egos for a little while." I am frankly surprised that Mr. Kerne's article was approved for posting; it's quite irrelevant in view of the soc.feminism charter. And not, Mr. Kerne, because you are a man. [True. Apologies. I read this to encourage more women to post (which I do encourage; I'd like to see a more even balance), and did not see the second paragraph. Too many decongestants. Unfortunately, I can't cancel the article (s/w won't let me). --Cindy] Charleen Bunjiovianna "Carpe diem...even if it kills me." -- _Dead Poets Society_
vicki@mathcs.emory.edu (Vicki Powers) (06/07/89)
I think everyone defines feminism in a slightly different way. However,
according to my definition, a man can be a feminist. I know lots of
them, in fact I married one! (This is a cop-out - I'm not going to
write down a definition of feminist because I find it hard to say
exactly what I think a feminist is and because I don't want to start a
huge debate on what the word means!!)
Vicki
--
Vicki Powers | vicki@mathcs.emory.edu PREFERRED
Emory University | {sun!sunatl,gatech}!emory!vicki UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | vicki@emory NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322 | apa@PROOF.CS.CMU.EDU (Penny Anderson) (06/11/89)
In article <16898@paris.ics.uci.edu> drc@beach.cis.ufl.EDU (David Cabana) writes: >If one accepts the position that a man cannot be a feminist, then >one accepts the position that a person's gender can render that person >incapable of holding (even perhaps understanding) certain beliefs. >This is sexism, pure and simple. Similarly, the claim that a person is >incapable of understanding something because of that person's race is >racism, pure and simple. While I don't accept the position that a man can't be a feminist, I can't let this pass unchallenged. I've heard this so many times, yet it seems an obvious distortion of a commonsense observation: a person who has never experienced something cannot understand it as well as one who has. It is not racism to say that, because I am "white", I don't understand the experience of "nonwhite" people very well. My lack of understanding is all the greater because there is so little public expression of nonwhite experience. I'm quite willing to believe that members of minority groups understand my experience far better than I understand theirs, because the "white" point of view saturates both the mass media and the fine arts. Middle-class people of European descent are constantly explaining themselves to the world in books, films, you name it -- we dominate it in this country. It's the same with men and women: women have been voiceless for a long time, so of course men have difficulty understanding our experience. We have trouble too, because it's not enough to *have* the experience; one has to communicate it to give it meaning. This issue is especially important for the politics of women and men, because the mechanisms that exclude women from power, autonomy, and wealth are so informal and subtle, and we women ourselves are constantly being manipulated (by circumstances, guys, not some male Illuminati) into abetting them. One of these mechanisms is the assumption that a man has the right and capability, by virtue of his objectivity, to define any situation. This is a terribly difficult assumption to eliminate, and the importance and difficulty of doing so are ample justification to me for excluding men from *some* feminist discussions. [This came to me as a forwarded mail message containing a bounced message; I hope I have the attributions correct. Let me know if I don't. -- Cindy]
asr@beach.cis.ufl.EDU (Allen S. Rout) (06/14/89)
In article <DRUID.89Jun6134906@forsight.robotics.jpl.nasa.gov> druid@robotics.jpl.nasa.gov (Andrew Kerne) writes: >I don't think that men in general have the right to say what is >feminist -- it is something essentially defined by women. >So men, please, please, sit with your egos quietly for a little while, >at least until some women have spoken about this. Otherwise, the >connection between soc.feminism and feminism will be approaching >non-existent. My apologies, but I am rather offended by this set of remarks. It took me several reads to understand just what it was that raised my hackles, but I think that I have it more-or-less pinned down:: A COMPLETE definition of feminism can not be based ONLY on women's opinions. The impressions and opinions of the (radical in one direction) Woman Who Rants At Men Who Hold Doors are important, but likely to be a bit jaded, do you not think?? As important is the opinion of the (radical in the other direction) Man Who Thinks That Women Are Brainless Baby Factories for he presents a perspective on the forces that come to bear on the Woman Who... I accept, though I am too young to have seen much of the Women's Movement, The opinions and attitudes that I have seen from many women, their defensiveness when their abilities or perogatives are slighted, but that does not mean that the opinions of the men around them are valuless. I feel that your post denies any validity to Men's perspectives on Women. and I am unhappy that you feel that men are so far away from women that they are incapable of responsible attitudes. My tirade is over. Thank you for your open ears and minds. -- (ME)-<> asr@beach.cis.ufl.edu (aka zelig@oak.circa.ufl.edu) "Bones, help this man, He's hurt!" <-> <-> "Dammit, Jim, I'm a DOCTOR, not a.... Oh, yeah."
mb33%prism@gatech.EDU (Martin H. Brooks) (06/14/89)
[Responses to assorted articles follow --Cindy] >In article <16898@paris.ics.uci.edu> drc@beach.cis.ufl.EDU (David Cabana) writes: In article <17419@paris.ics.uci.edu> apa@proof.cs.cmu.edu writes: ************************************************************************ >>If one accepts the position that a man cannot be a feminist, then >>one accepts the position that a person's gender can render that person >>incapable of holding (even perhaps understanding) certain beliefs. >While I don't accept the position that a man can't be a feminist, I >can't let this pass unchallenged. I've heard this so many times, yet >it seems an obvious distortion of a commonsense observation: a person >who has never experienced something cannot understand it as well as >one who has. Definitely, but this concept needs to be viewed as a continuum. To one extreme, we all share in the understanding of what it's like to be human, though to the other extreme, no one can COMPLETELY understand the experience of another. To be responsible and fair, I think we must all be careful how we judge someone else's level of understanding. I'm a man, and I define myself as a feminist. But, no matter how hard I tried, I could never know how it feels to be discriminated against for being a woman TO THE DEGREE that another woman could. On the other hand, I do know how it feels to be unfairly excluded and stereotyped on the basis of other issues that SHOULDN'T be issues. One of these issues happens to be sexism, from a man's perspective. Believe me, I've received lots of mental abuse from both men and women when I've fought against fitting into the traditional male role. It's always been very important to me to be free to define myself, and this includes striving for desirable qualities traditionally labeled as feminine as well as those traditionally labeled as masculine. For me, these experiences are all part of the feminist message; for these are the same sexist structures that have caused mental abuse of women as well, not to mention the added injustice of political and economic discrimination! ************************************************************************ >women have been voiceless for a long >time, so of course men have difficulty understanding our experience. >We have trouble too, because it's not enough to *have* the experience; >one has to communicate it to give it meaning. Well, "feminists" HAD been voiceless for a relatively long time in the scheme of things, but for the last two decades (roughly), I think you'll agree that these voices have been STRONG and they have definitely been HEARD. Though the feminist movement has a long way to go, let's not forget that a significant level of understanding has already been achieved that includes both men and women. ************************************************************************ >the mechanisms that exclude women from power, autonomy, and >wealth are so informal and subtle, I wholeheartedly agree with this much, BUT... >One of these mechanisms is the >assumption that a man has the right and capability, by virtue of his >objectivity, to define any situation. I'm definitely not initiated into this line of discussion. My first impression is that it's one of those cleverly-constructed "catch 22" machines aimed at disarming someone's opinion by "proving" itself valid when the target expresses an opinion. ;-) My experiences have made me skeptical of the idea that men and women have distinctly different thought processes. Don't we ALL assume the right to define concepts relative to our own perspective, preferably with as much objectivity as possible? I would be interested in hearing more, though. :-) -- Martin H. Brooks Georgia Institute of Technology (aka Georgia Tech), Atlanta, GA 30332 uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!mb33 Internet: mb33@prism.gatech.edu
tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) (06/15/89)
[What follows was posted twice to soc.feminism but seems to have
gotten lost between acns.nwu.edu and the newsgroup and/or moderators.
I'm not sure how timely this is by now, though I'm saying something a
bit different. --Albert Lunde]
I would like to think of myself as a feminist. I agree this is not
beyond question, and do not insist that anyone agree with me. If the
politics and ideology of feminism derive from and are defined by
women's experience, men are marginal to it.
How I, as a man, relate to feminism, seems to me to me to be easier to
resolve with Tao than theory. Confrontation seems at cross purposes
with supporting feminism. Women's self-definition is an important
principle. I would rather risk being uncomfortable than have feminism
watered down.
I would suggest to C. Williamson that he might want to ask the
permission of the organizer when registering for woman's studies
courses, to avoid cases where her preference is that the class be
women-only. Beyond this, try to be tactful and try not make an issue
of oneself.
I still have mixed emotions when I approach these topics. I feel I'm
on "both sides" when I talk about it and I'm also of two minds on how
much to say.
I would like to suggest some reading which bears on the relation of
sympathetic men to feminism, which has moved me in important ways:
- Every Mother's Son by Judith Arcana
(1st ed. Doubleday/ 2nd ed. Seal Press)
- The Women Say, The Men Say by Evelyn Shapiro & Barry Shapiro
(Dell Pub.)
- The Anatomy of Freedom by Robin Morgan
(Doubleday)
- For Men Against Sexism: a book of readings ed. Jon Snodgrass
(Distributed by The Crossing Press)
- "A Creed for For Free Women * ...
(* and such men as feel happy with it)" from the book:
Sapphic Songs: eighteen to eighty by Else Gidlow
(Distributed by Naiad Press)
- "I am a Dangerous Woman" by Joan Cavanagh from the book
Reweaving the Web of Life ed. Pam McAllister
(New Society Publishers)
Finding a bookstore that sells them is half the fun :-) ...
[Does anyone want to post a review of any of these books?! --Cindy]
Albert Lunde lunde@nuacc.acns.nwu.edu
"We are all part of one another" - Barbara Demming lunde@nuacc.bitnet onymouse@ncar.UCAR.EDU (John DeBert) (06/22/89)
in article <16898@paris.ics.uci.edu>, drc@beach.cis.ufl.EDU (David Cabana) says: > > In article <4960@umd5.umd.edu> cwilliam@umd5.umd.edu (Christopher Williamson) > writes: >> >> I would like to know your feelings on wether a man can ever be considered >>a feminist, and if so what exactly defines feminism. > ... some stuff omitted ... >> I have been told by different people, men and women, that "men will never >>fully understand," which I agree with; however, whites can never fully >>understand the plight of the blacks earlier in our nation's history and, yet >>many prominent whites helped in the struggle to correct injustices. >> > > If one accepts the position that a man cannot be a feminist, then > one accepts the position that a person's gender can render that person > incapable of holding (even perhaps understanding) certain beliefs. > This is sexism, pure and simple. Similarly, the claim that a person is > incapable of understanding something because of that person's race is > racism, pure and simple. > >> As a male supporter of women's rights, I often get in this arguement. >>Being the only male in some upper level "female studies" courses at the Univ. >>of Maryland, I constantly find myself being besieged with little or no >>defense as to why I have a "right" to take women's studies courses and if >>I can truely call myself a feminist, or even a supporter of women's rights. > > It strikes me as ironic that (presumed) feminists, of all people, would > question your right to take a class because of your sex. Bigotry has many > forms. > > David Cabana > Yes, a man can be a feminist and even considered a feminist. Such men are as discriminated against as most women, and taken just as seriously. A man who is also an overt feminist can understand very well what it means to be discriminated against. There are men who are "different" and do not conform to the stereotypical classifications of what a man is supposed to be. They are very uncomfortable with being masculine and tend more often than not to express themselves in feminine ways. They are discriminated against by other men in the same way that women are (mostly for different reasons) and they are also discriminated aagainst by women, including feminist women. And there the men who are "closet feminists," who outwardly do all the things that demonstrate that they are another "Man" but who secretly root for womens' causes. And there are those between the two. It seems to be a masculine tendency to "exactly define" things, to set and define clear bounds in which to categorize things. Feminism isn't "exactly" anything as it not only encompasses womens' liberty and power over themselves but also some "masculine" things and even some things that belong to both or neither. Would the women in this group be so kind as to list at least the basics of feminism? My list includes: To have control over her own life and body. To be accepted on equal terms To be free from any and all sexual harrassment, pressures and demands To be taken seriously. To be be considered for employment on the basis of ability and accomplishment and not on how well she conforms to expectations. There are others but I will not bore you all with the details - now. As for the idea that white men cannot understand black mens' life, that's fact, not racism. White men, as a whole, cannot relate to anything outside their system. Everything is handed to them virtually on a silver platter because they are white. They are protected from the problems of color and cannot comprehend them. White women come closer to understanding such things but still have great difficulty comprehending what life is like for a black woman, for example. Actually, racism is part of it but it is still a fact. J. DeBert onymouse@netcom.UUCP [...!uunet!apple!netcom!onymouse] A-N-Onymouse@cup.portal.com [...!uunet!apple!portal!cup.portal.com!A-N-Onymouse]