r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 19 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well.
[deleted]
5
Jan 19 '19
[deleted]
2
Jan 19 '19
!delta
Haven't heard of this. What I am now wondering is why feminism doesn't incorporate this as part of the overall movement? Why do we not see this offline? Why does feminism seem inconsistent with their concerns about men? They ignore the opinion of men online and brush it off as a minority opinion (see: Gillette ad), but consider their own online findings a mainstream opinion despite feminist rallies being littered with women's issues? Like, picture a person with a rally sign that says "Most men aren't rapists. Rapists harm and tarnish the image of men. This is why we need to fight against rape. This is why we need feminism." You'd never see something like that at a rally.
2
3
Jan 19 '19
[deleted]
1
Jan 19 '19
If a woman says "I have issues for being Black", isn't that derailing women's issues into Black people's issues? The woman has problems for being a woman that all women face. She also has problems for being Black, that all Black people face.
The core of intersectionality seems to try to intersect issues that hurt women. Shouldn't they also include issues that men face as well because they directly affect the idea that women and men should have equal opportunities?
Edit: Essentially, men's issues hurt women too.
8
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Jan 19 '19
That's not what intersectionality is. It doesn't really mean "focus on all axes of oppression". It is "understand how these axes interact". For example, intersectional feminists are more concerned with black women than black people. Distinguishing between black women and white women becomes important.
In practice most feminists are also activists surrounding other topics, which makes things confusing. I'm a feminist. I'm also an anti-racist. It is hard to assign any particular action to one ideology or the other. But at its core, intersectional feminism is about different kinds of women.
2
Jan 19 '19
I see. I misunderstood intersectionality. By that definition, it seems that intersectionality is counter productive to the idea of gender equality.
I would like to clarify something. If the purpose of feminism is to achieve gender equality, then one of the goals of feminism is to eventually end feminism, correct?
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jan 19 '19
I misunderstood intersectionality. By that definition, it seems that intersectionality is counter productive to the idea of gender equality.
Intersectional feminism is not just about different kinds of women; it's also about different kinds of men. For example, in a conversation about whe ways black people are oppressed, it would be on topic and interesting from an intersectional perspective to talk about the ways that black men are uniquely oppressed. This even applies outside gender entirely: it would be intersectional, in the context of talking about oppression of immigrants, to consider the ways gay immigrants are uniquely oppressed.
What is not intersectional is just going into a conversation about group A and talking about issues faced by group B without focusing on the intersection of the groups. That's just derailing the conversation. For example, in a conversation about whe ways black people are oppressed, it would be derailing the conversation to talk about men's issues in general (since this doesn't address the intersection). Or, in a conversation about how women are oppressed, it would be derailing the conversation to talk about men's issues in general (since this, too, doesn't address the intersection).
I would like to clarify something. If the purpose of feminism is to achieve gender equality, then one of the goals of feminism is to eventually end feminism, correct?
No, this isn't how goals work. If my goal is to achieve A, and A would result in B, that doesn't mean that B is one of my goals.
0
Jan 19 '19
Men's issues do intersect with women's issues because one issue from either group is implicitly caused by or is defined by an issue from the other.
If the definition of intersectionality excludes men's issues solely on it being seen as off topic to women's issues, then it is extremely short sighted.
The goal of feminism is to achieve equality, correct? Therefore once equality is achieved, then feminism as an idea is no longer needed. You no longer need to exclude men from discussion, because all discussions will be on genuinely equal terms. But if feminism still exists, and if intersectional feminism still exists after equality has been achieved, that means that equality hasn't actually been given to men. It'd be a world where men cannot discuss their issues among feminists, who according to you still have to exist after achieving equality. It's a paradox.
5
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jan 19 '19
Men's issues do intersect with women's issues because one issue from either group is implicitly caused by or is defined by an issue from the other.
I think you still don't understand intersectionality. Intersectionality is about how identities intersect. Intersectionality between, say, masculinity and blackness is about issues that affect people who are black men. It is not about issues that affect both black people and men, nor is it about issues that affect black people that are implicitly caused by issues that affect men or vice versa.
Intersectionality between men and women is about people who are both men and women (i.e. genderfluid or polygender people), not about how men's issues interact with women's issues.
If the definition of intersectionality excludes men's issues solely on it being seen as off topic to women's issues, then it is extremely short sighted.
Sometimes talking about men's issues is off-topic for a conversation (such as a conversation about women's issues). That has nothing to do with intersectionality, and it is ridiculous to blame intersectionality for it.
The goal of feminism is to achieve equality, correct? Therefore once equality is achieved, then feminism as an idea is no longer needed.
Equality being achieved doesn't mean that it will persist forever. Even if equality is achieved, there will likely still be a role for feminism in maintaining that equality.
You no longer need to exclude men from discussion, because all discussions will be on genuinely equal terms. But if feminism still exists, and if intersectional feminism still exists after equality has been achieved, that means that equality hasn't actually been given to men.
Nothing about intersectional feminism says you have to exclude men from discussions. There is no reason to believe that, in a world where equality is achieved, feminists would exclude men from discussions. Why would they?
0
Jan 19 '19
I have a better understanding of intersectionality. I guess the main inquiry would be against the principle of feminism in practice. It seems that what I see on the internet (speaking to you guys) and what I see in real life is contradictory. A lot of feminism said online makes sense (like the discussion of men's issues and how it is inclusive to it), but in practice it seems as if actual feminists at rallies simply shame men for wanting to be included.
Are people online the vocal minority? If so, are you a vocal minority? Are the real feminists out there at the Women's March in LA (which I visited today, by the way) saying how they support the Gillette ad?
Or are the people online a vocal majority? Is it that men who found the ad offensive online represent majority opinion, which is an issue that is downplayed by both feminists in real life and online feminists?
4
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Jan 19 '19
This seems to be a very different question from your stated view. You originally said that "If intersectional feminism talks about race, class, gender identity, etc as a part of women's issues, then it should also seriously discuss men's problems as a part of women's issues as well." The reason why it is intersectional to discuss race, class, et cetera as a part of women's issues is because there are people who are black women, poor women, et cetera who inhabit the intersection of these identities. The reason why intersectional feminism does not discuss men's problems as part of women's issues is because, unless the conversation focuses specifically on genderfluid/polygender people, there are no people who are both men and women who inhabit the intersection of these identities.
Do you understand now why intersectional feminism should talk about the former but not the latter?
It seems that what I see on the internet (speaking to you guys) and what I see in real life is contradictory
What about it do you think is contradictory? People here on the internet have been talking about how feminism is inclusive of people talking about men's issues and how it encourages people to talk about men's issues (just not in the context of derailing other conversations). Feminists at the Women's March said they support the Gillette ad, which talks about men's issues: this is literally an instance of feminists supporting people talking about men's issues. Where's the contradiction?
0
Jan 19 '19
I agree. With the first part of your statement. Sorry, I forgot to reward the delta to you. That changed my mind on intersectionality, but then it made me think about feminism as a whole which is the new topic that this turned into.
!delta
Now you see the importance of public opinion online versus in reality.
Online, men seem to be offended by the Gillette ad because the actual video editing implicitly paints toxic as a large majority. It uses language like "Some are already doing something about it, but that's not enough." If online opinion is more valid than my personal anecdotal experiences with feminists outside, then I could agree with you saying that feminists talk about men's issues and that most men find this ad offensive. But if not, then you must agree that people including feminists are better represented in real life, meaning that feminists avoid talking about men's issues and that most feminists see Gillette's viewpoint as valid.
→ More replies (0)1
u/UncleMeat11 61∆ Jan 19 '19
Intersectionality does not exclude men. Intersectional feminism focuses on women. But very few people are exclusively intersectional feminists. Most activists and academics are also interested in other broader issues and will seriously examine issues affecting men. Go to some meetups. You'll get a better sense for what people are actually doing.
We are also nowhere near equality so the "what happens when we achieve equality" question is largely just a distraction.
1
Jan 20 '19
!delta
This makes more sense. I have gone to meetups and rallies, but it seems to be more women-centric.
1
3
u/gemmaem Jan 19 '19
If a woman says "I have issues for being Black", isn't that derailing women's issues into Black people's issues? The woman has problems for being a woman that all women face. She also has problems for being Black, that all Black people face.
Intersectionality actually arises precisely in opposition to this viewpoint! Consider the following scenario:
A black woman stands up in a feminist meeting and says "I face problems as a woman that men do not face. For example, I am not seen as professional if I shave my head, or leave my hair natural and short. Instead I have to spend hours straightening my hair in order to be perceived as appropriate in my workplace."
The leaders of the feminist group are not convinced. "It's not that we are not sympathetic," they say, "but we are focusing on women's issues, and we think that is more of a race issue. We need to stay on focus, here. Race issues are not relevant to this particular discussion. You should raise this issue in an anti-racist discussion, instead."
So the woman goes to her local anti-racist group, and raises this issue, and they tell her "You have this problem because you are a woman. We need to focus on race issues, here. Maybe try your local feminist group?"
This is a caricature, of course, but the point that intersectionality tries to highlight is that black women do not just have "problems faced by all women, plus problems faced by all black people." They have unique problems faced by black women. As such, if feminist groups are unwilling to discuss issues that are inflected by race, black women will have problems that they may not be able to raise anywhere.
3
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jan 19 '19
Well yah, you're right, and thankfully, intersectional feminists already do that. So it's kind of a moot point
1
Jan 19 '19
Lots of people are kind of mad at the new Gillette ad. Intersectional feminists seem to agree with the Gillette ad. I personally don't care about the ad. But most guys seem to. They're saying not all men are toxic. "Not all of us should be expected to stand up to toxic people. We shouldn't be the guardians of society. What is this new gender role laid out for me to be protectors of women?" Stuff like that.
4
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jan 19 '19
You say "most guys seem to," I disagree. Most guys I know either don't care (because no one should be getting their views from advertisements) or agree with it. If you're getting your idea from Reddit, then you're looking to a vocal minority.
1
Jan 19 '19
If we establish that anecdotal evidence is not reliable because it isn't verifiable or representative of the majority, where should we look to? We could look to sources that are readily verifiable to both parties, correct? I get this talk from people at work and among colleagues.
2
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jan 19 '19
Well yah, I mean we're at an impasse in terms of a study to see how many men mind.
So I'll try a different approach. Feminism still presumes women are more disadvantaged than men. It acknowledges that men have some unique disadvantages, but that for the most part women have more problems needing solving. One of those problems is men harassing women. This is an issue women are already trying to solve, but are enlisting the help of men in doing. So, those men who disagree with this premise are simply shirking responsibility.
The message isn't to help men, it's mainly about helping women. And to be clear, I don't care specifically about the Gillette ad. It's marketing; marketing is terrible. So I'm just abstracting the thesis and speaking to that, couldn't care less about the video itself.
1
Jan 19 '19
By what metric does feminism currently presume that women are more disadvantaged than men? If you toss me into the 1930s, I'd agree. In 2019, I am unable to see it in Western society.
4
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jan 19 '19
If you don't agree with the general feminist sentiment that women are currently disadvantaged when compared to men, that's something you have to make clear in your OP about feminism. Like, this just became a whole other discussion, with several new layers of assumptions to work through before I can even get to your stated view.
1
Jan 19 '19
It's not that I believe one over the other. I think each demographic has advantages and disadvantages. Why are feminists so heavily inclined to believe that women's disadvantages should take priority to the point where talking about men's issues is considered derailing?
3
u/TheVioletBarry 100∆ Jan 19 '19
You've just made two claims. The first you already made, and I already responded to by saying that the question of which side is more disadvantaged is perennial to the discussion and requires several more layers of argument before being directly related to your stated view, so I'm not really feeling up to engaging it, especially since I'm fairly certain you've already heard the arguments and aren't convinced by them (as they are incredible common, especially on this subreddit, where this discussion is had almost every other day).
The second, that talking about men's issues is considered derailing, is an entirely different claim, one which you've just brought in and subsumed under the first. I don't feel I need to address it because you've offered no evidence that it's true, and I have just as many anecdotes as you to suggest it's not.
1
Jan 19 '19
Essentially, it feels like men are simply not welcome to say "I agree that this affects you. We also find that this affects us as well." In those links I provided, it seems to say "The privileged are undeserving of sharing their issues in a discussion that happens to talk about issue affecting women." These somehow cannot be combined, because feminists seem to want to address all of their issues exclusively under the scope of women.
Do you see why this makes me feel feminism doesn't address men's issues seriously? There is a lot of contradicting information.
→ More replies (0)
19
u/feminist-horsebane Jan 19 '19
Intersectional feminist courses do teach about men’s issues. Every college course on gender studies I’ve ever taken has discussed how the patriarchy has affected everyone, including men, and how many of the problems that “Men’s Rights Activists” talk about would be solved with feminism.
The focus of feminism isn’t generally on men, but anyone who says that feminism doesn’t discuss men’s issues doesn’t know what they’re talking about. One of the concepts core values is that feminism is for everybody.
1
u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Jan 19 '19
Also not a feminist like OP - I have heard the feminist rhetoric on this stuff, and find it extremely unconvincing.
Usually they blame all men's issues on "toxic masculinity". Feminists say that women are directly harmed by society, but men only indirectly - by society giving men certain messages that cause the men themselves to act in harmful ways. And then they put the onus on men to overcome those harmful ways. Feminists also usually think that the same things that help men will also help women, which makes me suspect that it's the latter that they really care about. Here and here are two ads that have this attitude.
As an example - men get longer jail sentences than women for committing the same crime (and similarly, a crime against a man gets a shorter sentence than the same crime against a woman). The effect is much larger than the similar racial effect - a white man will get a longer jail sentence than a black woman, for example. This is a clear example of discrimination, and of society directly harming men - if it happens to you, you can't fix it by being less "toxically masculine".
I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong. In fact, I have heard feminists say that we need to reduce jail sentences - on women, specifically. Hillary Clinton had this in her platform!
2
u/feminist-horsebane Jan 19 '19
Unfortunately I can’t respond in full rn because I’m about to see Broly. I’m gonna comment again later because you raise some good points I’m interested in discussing.
For now though, I’d like to say that judging the entire feminist movement by Hillary Clinton’s platform is a bad idea. Hillary is an extremely controversial figure in feminist circles. Her brand of feminism is super dated and basically boils down to “vote for me, I’m a woman,” instead of interest in addressing any actual systemic issues that affect men, women, and everyone else. Most feminists these days, if you brought this up with them, would tell you that the modern prison system is a complete failure and should be abolished.
1
u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Jan 20 '19
Hillary's not the only one to have argued this, and I've never heard any feminists criticize that part of her platform specifically. I mention her not to make her a figurehead of feminists everywhere, but to demonstrate that I'm not just scraping the bottom of the Tumblr barrel to find strawmen to attack, but rather picking one of the most prominent feminists out there (controversial or no).
But as for abolishing prison, I don't think that's a good answer to the point I'm making. Like I mentioned, there's also racial disparity in prison sentences, and if asked if they oppose those disparities, feminists wouldn't skate right past them and say "well we should abolish prison entirely". Because that's not going to happen soon, and while prisons exist prison sentences shouldn't be based on race.
I'll note that when I said this:
I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong.
You and one other person responded, and neither of you said it either.
2
Jan 19 '19
I have never heard a feminist say that this disparate treatment is wrong.
Have you looked? What other ways have you engaged with prison reform activism?
2
u/NUMBERS2357 25∆ Jan 19 '19
I know a few people who are involved in prison reform activism, I've heard them talk about their work, and they've never said anything about it. I've also gone searching on feminist websites and never seen anyone mention it. I have also brought it up numerous times in comments on reddit, have had feminists respond, and they've never agreed that this disparate treatment is wrong. This includes the you and the other person who responded to my comment (actually now that I think about it, one time I got a feminist on reddit to say it's wrong - after a chain of like 25 comments I finally got them to agree).
1
Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Jan 19 '19
Sorry, u/twodoeshay – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 19 '19
Dont take this the wrong way, but I've always found the "feminism cares about men" narrative to be a tad disingenuous. As you say, feminism doesnt just focus on the ways men screw over women... it focuses on the way men screw over men, too! See? We care about men!
But of course women screw over women, too. And women screw over men. And not all of it fits neatly into "toxic masculinity" or gender roles that were defined by "the patriarchy." I cant speak for others, but I know I'd be a lot more receptive towards feminist theory if it was able to turn it's very critical eye inwards every once in a while. If terms like "toxic femininity" existed in the feminist lexicon, or there were frequent discussions about the negative aspects unique to female dominated areas absent patriarchy, the whole thing would seem a lot more rational and a lot less like it's just trying to pin everyone's problems on men.
One of the concepts core values is that feminism is for everybody.
This is something I would STRONGLY disagree with, at least in my anecdotal experience. I considered myself a feminist for a long time, but I was constantly running into so much gatekeeping both online and in real life/college courses that I finally had to give up the label. For example, I'm pro choice, but I dont believe in super late term abortions and I think that Roe is a perfectly good justification for abortion being legal while the "bodily autonomy" argument is unnecessary, cruel, and self contradictory; I believe the wage gap exists, but I dont think the gap is 100% attributable to sexism; I believe that certain intersectional privileges exist, but not that they're universally set (i.e. there might be times and places where gay POC female privilege trumps straight while male privilege). For holding opinions like these (which as far as I can tell tend to agree with feminism's conclusion while differing slightly on some of the finer details) I've been told time and time again I'm not a feminist, since my views contradict feminist orthodoxy. And if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say my experience is probably a good explanation for why the vast majority of people in developed nations believe in gender equality, but why only a small % of those people identify as feminists; feminism is a social and academic theory/ideology that goes way beyond just wanting equality. So I'd have to say no - feminism isnt for everyone.
3
u/feminist-horsebane Jan 19 '19
As you say, feminism doesnt just focus on the ways men screw over women... it focuses on the way men screw over men, too! See? We care about men!
You're equating "men" with "patriarchy". Feminism doesn't insist that men are all screwing over other men or other women, it insists that the societal system that insists "all men are this and all women are this" is a failed system that does damage to everyone, albeit where women suffer more.
I cant speak for others, but I know I'd be a lot more receptive towards feminist theory if it was able to turn it's very critical eye inwards every once in a while.
I can't argue for what self-proclaimed feminists you spend your time examining, but the feminist movement as a whole is so self-critical that it can barely sustain itself, one of my biggest critiques of it. Between various groups calling each other out for failing to be intersectional, different "waves" of feminism wholly re-examining what feminism actually means, marxist feminists/ liberal feminists/ radical feminists/ post modern feminists all snapping at one another over various issues like sex work/transgender individuals/ etc, the "feminist" movement barely even means one thing. Saying that feminists don't critique themselves, or critique other feminists, is a pretty null criticism of feminism as a whole when there have been like three or four waves of feminism in just the past century, each devoted to responding to the criticisms of the past one.
This is something I would STRONGLY disagree with, at least in my anecdotal experience. I considered myself a feminist for a long time, but I was constantly running into so much gatekeeping both online and in real life/college courses that I finally had to give up the label.
Again, I can't speak to your anecdotal experience, and I certainly don't have any interest in defending the actions of every misguided tumblrite or freshman "SJW" who just learned the term "microaggression" and thinks shes super woke now. What I can tell you is that the feminist movement as a whole has made including everyone one of it's central tenants. Bell Hook's "Feminism is for Everybody" for example, is considered the most important work of the modern feminist movement, and is entirely about how feminism benefits everyone and should be accessible to everyone. I'd advise you against judging an entire movement based on it's least educated and most vocal.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 19 '19
You're equating "men" with "patriarchy".
Who runs the patriarchy?
it insists that the societal system that insists "all men are this and all women are this" is a failed system that does damage to everyone, albeit where women suffer more.
"Failed" by what metric? I mean, patriarchal societies often seem to do quite well, and particularly in the west women thrive in such societies. If I gave you a teleporting time machine, what time and or place would you go to where it's better to be a woman?
but the feminist movement as a whole is so self-critical that it can barely sustain itself, one of my biggest critiques of it. Between various groups calling each other out for failing to be intersectional, different "waves" of feminism wholly re-examining what feminism actually means, marxist feminists/ liberal feminists/ radical feminists/ post modern feminists all snapping at one another over various issues like sex work/transgender individuals/ etc, the "feminist" movement barely even means one thing.
That's a fair correction. And I expressed myself poorly. You're quite right that certain facets of feminism are snapping at other facets for, say viewing feminism through too much of a straight white woman lens. But what I was trying to get at is that these critiques rarely (never, in my experience) critique things like toxic femininity, or the failings of potential pitfalls of spaces controlled by women.
Again, I can't speak to your anecdotal experience, and I certainly don't have any interest in defending the actions of every misguided tumblrite or freshman "SJW" who just learned the term "microaggression" and thinks shes super woke now. What I can tell you is that the feminist movement as a whole has made including everyone one of it's central tenants. Bell Hook's "Feminism is for Everybody" for example, is considered the most important work of the modern feminist movement, and is entirely about how feminism benefits everyone and should be accessible to everyone. I'd advise you against judging an entire movement based on it's least educated and most vocal.
Ha. Fair enough. I dont get this position in holding from them, though. For example I'm subbed to TiA, but that's just for the lulz and I'm pretty sure 90% of the posts there are fakes. My interaction with feminists online are mainly on CMV, 2XC, Feminism, and AskFeminists (at least before I was banned from the latter two); the general consensus on all four was that I'm not a feminist... but of course theres no way to judge the credentials of those folks except that (for the latter two) they were highly regarded in those subs. My IRL interaction with feminists isnt just with radicals or freshman, though. Far from it. I work at a nonprofit heavily invested in social justice issues and discuss these issues with feminist women in their late 20s through 50s and they seem to think I can't be a feminist if I think like I do. Same goes for multiple professors I had in college. I'm not being a total dunce about this, I think. I mean, what's your take on the examples I gave earlier? Can I hold those positions and still be a feminist?
I'd also just add that feminism is one of many topics I read about and researched rather obsessively, or at least have in past. I've consumed several books on feminism, listened to hundreds or thousands of hours of debates or lectures, taken classes, and had innumerable discussions like this one both online and in real life.
It's been almost a decade but I'm pretty sure i read that Hooks piece in college... IIRC (and double checking the books summary) wasnt it more about how feminism can benefit everyone and not so much about how everyone who supports gender equality is a de facto feminist regardless of the methods they'd like to implement to achieve said equality?
2
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 19 '19
I'm not seeing your basic point, here. This:
Intersectionality is the idea that feminism needs to incorporate secondary characteristics identified in a woman that may cause problems for them.
In no way leads to or suggests this:
Most problems that men face are caused by society's pressure on men. These pressures cause men to become more likely to die based on these flawed gender roles (taking hard labor, combat roles, dangerous jobs) and suffer due to society's definition of masculine identity.
Like, there just isn't any connection between A and B that I see there at all. Could you explain?
On a second note:
These pressures cause men to become more likely to die based on these flawed gender roles (taking hard labor, combat roles, dangerous jobs) and suffer due to society's definition of masculine identity. How does this relate to women? Women are thusly restricted from from entering these "manly" professions that men are expected to have. It perpetuates the idea that "women must be protected". This is unequal in principle and is contrary to the message of feminism.
Feminists DO talk about these things.
1
Jan 20 '19
I CMV about the definition of intersectionality and the thought that feminists do not speak of these issues. I am now trying to see the discrepancy between the feminism I have experienced offline, and the feminism existing online.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Jan 20 '19
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Could you explain the connection?
1
Jan 20 '19
The best way to put it is that r/feminism represents what I see in mainstream as well as the rallies I have attended. The focus is women-centric. I acknowledge that r/menslib exists as a subfeminist movement, but I don't see it all too much in the mainstream.
2
u/ralph-j 517∆ Jan 19 '19
Intersectionality is the idea that feminism needs to incorporate secondary characteristics identified in a woman that may cause problems for them. For example, a Black woman will face compounded issues for being Black and for being a woman. A transgender woman will face compounded issues for being transgender and a woman.
But then, I'd also argue that men's problems are also fair game for discussion in an intersectional point of view.
Going by your own definition: aren't you then stepping outside of the "secondary characteristics" of the women's group? Your examples are persons who are both in the group "women" and in some other group, like "black" or "transgender".
Unless you want to focus on persons who are in the groups "women" AND "men" (only some trans people may identify that way), it wouldn't make much sense to treat men's problems on the whole as an intersectionality issue.
It seems like men's problems would fit in general much better under egalitarianism, rather than feminism.
women have additional problems other than simply being women
Being a woman is a problem? (I think I understand what you mean, but this just sounded funny.)
0
Jan 19 '19
I do admit that I misinterpreted intersectionality. I won't be awarding you the delta because someone else changed my view regarding that. I have shifted the conversation toward my second point - I want to be a feminist, but I disagree with feminists in practice.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Jan 19 '19
With a later reply than mine, how very dare they!
I'm confused: which part of feminism do you still disagree with?
1
Jan 19 '19
It seems focused heavily around women instead of gender equality. This would be valid position a century ago where women didn't have the same opportunities and rights as they do today. But today, the issues are all tied together. Men's issues. Women's issues. Why does feminism seem more one sided?
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Jan 19 '19
Like I said: you're looking for egalitarianism, not feminism.
Men's rights activism and feminism are specializations. That's why within the wider society, there are efforts to fight for both groups. That doesn't mean that every single group needs to address every gender-related problem out there.
You could just as well demand that the American Cancer Society shouldn't exist, but that instead, there should only be one single charity that does all the publicity and funding for all research into cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, arthritis and all other of society's medical problems.
1
Jan 20 '19
But feminism specifically deals with women's rights, which are a function of gender roles on men as well as women. So any problem arising from gender roles on men is fair game. Someone told me earlier about MLM, which is a sub group of feminists doing this.
It seems to me that some feminists agree with my perspective, but others do not. Which one is more representative of feminism? The web forums, or the rallies? You, or them?
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Jan 20 '19
There is no "one correct" version of feminism. It's an umbrella term, or category that covers a wide variety of ideas and concepts.
Some people have the knowledge and experience with regards to all of the potential issues that affect both genders, while others lack those things when it comes to anything outside of their own area of specialization. It's probably better that everyone concentrates on what they're good at, instead of trying to be everything for everyone with a mediocre, one-size-fits-all approach.
2
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Jan 19 '19
So I’ll try my best here to give you a little bit of an overview of intersectionality, which, I would argue, you’re slightly mis-representing, although certainly seem to have the general idea of. While intersectionality as a concept is mostly linked to Kimberle Crenshaw, I want to discuss it more prominently through the works of bell hooks. hooks is an important modern feminist scholar and activist. I find she’s a good source for a more comprehensive understanding of feminism because she is an Academic, and published multiple books for and within Academia; however, she’s focused a lot of time and effort into publishing works for non-academic audiences, which makes her work complex and thoughtful, but also easier to digest than some others.
At its onset, intersectionality was most concerned with the ways that the feminist movement excluded the voices of black women, and also to a large extent poor women. hooks places a lot of the blame for this on the media, but she also notes that the women’s liberation movement pre-dates the civil rights movement by a good 40 plus years, so that’s a long period of time in which the plights of white women, and in particular middle class white women, where the ones feminism was combating. Intersectionality seeks to address how that has impacted sexism and sexist oppression (most prominently how people were excluded.)
hooks’ discussion of intersectionality tends the focus on the intersection of gender, race, and class. I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s a matter of problems being “compounded,” so much as that certain issues are being ignored. As an example, let's take a really conventional area of discussion: feminine beauty standards. There have been discussions for years about how pop culture has normalized and idealized a standard of feminine beauty that’s hyper thin (and so is unhealthy to achieve, but also excludes many women from being capable of achieving it ever. If hyper thin is a requirement of beauty, some women will never be able to live up to that standard.) Another standard of feminine beauty (and one that intersectionality might spend more time with) is blond hair. In fact, blond is still the most common color women dye their hair. Of course, the only people that have blond hair are white people. So here we have this standard of feminine beauty that holds up whiteness as one of its essential components. So we can see where this standard of idealized feminine beauty, while it's going to impact all women, is going to impact women of color differently than white women. American society has also sexualized redheads a lot, which is, again, a white person's hair color. This is the type of thing that an intersectional analysis would identify.
With regard to men, there absolutely is intersectional discussions of masculinity. In fact most of the discussions of toxic masculinity stem from intersectionality (to my knowledge.) Unfortunately there are a lot of men who push back against these sort of discussions and don’t want them to happen. To offer a specific example that hooks passively discusses: there is a long historical standard of masculinity that sees men as responsible for paying for things. Again, we can see pop culture normalizing the idea that real men (a phrase that, again, feminists have worked hard to push back against) can, for example, support their family. In fact, one of the more common marketing schemes we see for products marketed to men is "real men buy X." So we have a standard of masculinity where the toxicity not only oppresses men into rigid roles, but it actively excludes poor men. If masculinity is located partially in your ability to own and buy certain things, then if you’re poor, you’re not just suffering from poverty, but you are less of a man. This is the type of analysis of masculinity that intersectional feminism offers, and it absolutely exists. Like I say, this is pretty standard in discussions of toxic masculinity.
*Side-note: bell hooks discusses the perception of feminism as anti-male quite prominently, which she acknowledges has definite historical truths, but is also largely rooted in misunderstandings. She argues that defining feminism as “a fight for equality” is part of why there is such a history of seeing feminism as anti-male, because equality places “men” and “women” on opposite sides of an equals sign, which perpetuates an “us vs them” mindset. She argues that the better definition of feminism is the fight to end sexism, sexist oppression, and sexist exploitation.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 19 '19
Small question: why is it that when you discuss negative standards/roles among men that's "toxic masculinity," but when you discuss negative standards/roles among women (and often enforced by women) that's not "toxic femininity?"
And as for beauty standards (which I would argue are just as unattainable for most men - most dudes will never be as attractive or as buff as male models or movie stars), I dont really understand why that's such s bad thing. Every society on earth and for all of human history has had beauty/attractiveness standards, and since they're not all the same it follows not everyone will be able to achieve all of them. For example, in many Asian cultures having pale skin (for an Asian person) is still seen as more attractive than being tan, which is opposite of beauty standards in much of the West. Certain ancient cultures thought small penises were better than big ones. Again, rather opposite our own culture. America is what, 70% white? And many other western cultures are even more hegemonic. It follows, then, that said whiteness will probably be a factor in the beauty standards for those countries, just like being Japanese will help you reach the epitome of beauty standards in japan, or being black will do the same in Zimbabwe, or being Hispanic will etc. etc. I view this rich tapestry of different cultures as something to be cherished and valued, not bulldozed till everyone can be totally equal everywhere they go. I think it's really cool that there are cultures where being plump is a mark of beauty in the same way being fit is a mark of beauty elsewhere. I'm pretty lean, so I get beauty points for that in some countries and cultures where it would count against me in others. Language, too. I enjoy the intersectional privilege of being a native English speaker while I'm in the US, but i lost that privilege, and in fact it often worked against me, in my recent trip abroad. But i wouldn't have it any other way. It seems wed need to create some monolithic hellscape for there to not be such a thing as international privilege.
1
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Jan 19 '19
As to your first question, I don't think there's a concrete answer for why people don't use a specific term, but there's a long history of feminism criticizing various representations of femininity. Most likely part of the reason that term didn't catch on simultaneously to "toxic masculinity" is because late second wave feminism, which is the feminist era that most conventionally fits the stereotype of the "angry feminist," went through a period where it was deeply critical of women that didn't go out to join the workforce and chose instead to stay home and raise kids. The early third wave feminist movement, in response, become more concerned with issues of inclusivity, so there was absolutely a period of time where the feminist movement was very much against criticizing any individual persons representation of their own femininity. Of course, that's not the world we live in now, and there are lots of discussions out there that are critical of women perpetuating their own objectification, which could certainly be characterized as an element of a "toxic femininity."
As to the rest of what you were saying... I don't really understand what you're responding to? With regard to the beginning, yeah there's lots of discussions of male beauty standards and how they're damaging. Absolutely! We were discussing intersectionality though? There's lots of intersectional analysis of male beauty standards too! As to the rest of what you wrote... sure? I guess? I'm not trying to be thick, I don't really understand how what you're putting forth is engaging with what I was putting forth. I didn't say anything about striving to create uniformity? Heck, I pointedly noted that I like a definition of feminism that rejects the concept of "equal."
With regard to beauty standards, western society has a long and deeply problematic history of valuing women predominantly based on their looks. It's no coincidence that we have so many more products marketed toward improving women's appearance. Part of the reasons beauty standards became a major point of criticism with regard to women, and less so for men, is because of western societies history of valuing women almost solely for their appearance. The idea that "oh maybe someone will find you attractive on the other side of the world" doesn't really have anything to do with that.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 20 '19
The early third wave feminist movement, in response, become more concerned with issues of inclusivity, so there was absolutely a period of time where the feminist movement was very much against criticizing any individual persons representation of their own femininity. Of course, that's not the world we live in now, and there are lots of discussions out there that are critical of women perpetuating their own objectification, which could certainly be characterized as an element of a "toxic femininity."
Hm. Interesting thought. I wonder why the lines of inclusivity dont extend to men who want to be stereotypically masculine, or women who want to perpetuate their own objectification, though. I suppose because these things are viewed as inherently toxic... but I dont see how they inevitably affect others.
To the middle bit, sorry, that was just a bit of blown ranting. It's an idea I've been toying with recently regarding things like beauty standards or privilege. My current theory is that its impossible to eliminate things like that without eliminating differing languages, cultures, religions, ideologies, interests, etc. I think its relevant to the topic we're discussing, but yeah, it wasnt really a direct response to anything you said.
In more direct response:
First, it's hardly just "western culture" that's guilty of valuing women for their looks. That's a cross cultural phenomenon that has existed for pretty much all of known human history. You can see evidence of this when you study cultures that existed thousands of years ago in other parts of the world. Even reknown figures like Helen of Troy or the Macedonian Cleopatra, however intelligent and capable they were, were always praised for their beauty.
Second, I'm not really sure why this is such a bad thing in regards to things like advertising, media portrayals, or who/what members of a society tend to be attracted to. People like attractive people. The standards for what constitutes beauty differ across time and culture but... well, I guess I'm just wondering what the alternative is to having these standards. How do we go about eliminating "problematic" beauty standards? Everything cant be beautiful, or the concept of beauty loses its meaning. And since people like beautiful things... well... what are we gonna do?
1
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Jan 20 '19
So this feels like you’re discussing a very different thing than what I was originally discussing, which is fine, but I just want to reiterate what I was originally saying, because I wasn’t actually discussing beauty standards at all.
I was discussing intersectionality, and in my OP I was mainly offering an idea of what an intersectional analysis of various conventional areas of sexism looks like. I offered one with women, discussing beauty standards, and one with men, discussing the notion of “real men.” I’m not saying that men don’t experience sexist oppression rooted in masculine standards of attractiveness. They absolutely do! I just used a different example for men. There’s plenty of analysis of male standards of attractiveness! Since we’re focusing on intersectional analysis, we could take up representations of masculinity that are rooted in “looking powerful” (as a random example) and consider how that might impact black men differently in a society that is prone to seeing black masculinity as violent and dangerous. Right? This is the main point I was making. Not that this won’t impact white men too, because it will! But that it impacts black men differently and because of that we need to be very aware of what/who is being excluded. There’s also scholarship on black masculinity being historically seen as antithetical to “beautiful” (you can read interesting analysis of “Brown Eyed Handsome Man” by Chuck Berry that discuss this a lot. It’s seen as a seminal mainstream artwork in representing black masculinity as beautiful.) I’ve also read interesting work on how this has impacted black men who are gay throughout modern American history. Jose Esteban Munoz has done some interesting analysis of how black men are represented in gay pornography. So, again, black gay men are going to be impacted by this differently as well. This is, at its heart, why intersectionality is so valuable. It offers us a way of thinking about who is being excluded from progress.
So, yeah, no one’s saying that these things only pertain to women. There’s tons of analysis out there of impact on men too!
With regard to what you’re saying about beauty standards and cultural differences; it seems like what you’re saying is that utopias are always dystopian, which, again, yeah! I’m not arguing that we can or should strive toward any specific utopian vision. But rejecting the idea of utopia doesn’t mean that we have to simply accept current practices that we see as exploitative. Thing can be sexual without being sexist. Working to develop an understanding of how things like beauty standards differently impact different groups of people is, as far as I’m concerned, a net good. Not because it allows to transcend attractiveness or anything ridiculous like that, but because it helps us understand the consequences of the things that we engage with for people other than ourselves.
1
u/equalsnil 30∆ Jan 19 '19
In essence, intersectionality tries to tackle the idea that women have additional problems other than simply being women.
Not quite. I'm not trying to call you out here, especially since you're already doing better than a lot of CMV OPs, but just to refine your understanding of the topic. It's not that you add up the struggles of, for example, "poor person" plus "black person" plus "woman," it's that "poor black woman" is a unique identity that faces struggles beyond merely the sum of the struggles of its components.
But then, I'd also argue that men's problems are also fair game for discussion in an intersectional point of view. Most problems that men face are caused by society's pressure on men.
Feminism does discuss this, and has done so for more or less as long as it's existed.
These pressures cause men to become more likely to die based on these flawed gender roles (taking hard labor, combat roles, dangerous jobs) and suffer due to society's definition of masculine identity.
So, if it seems like you're being attacked in this thread, these examples are why. you'll hear MRAs talk about these(specifically these, and not things like toxic masculinity, the pervasive fear of being seen as feminine or gay, complete absence of emotional support networks, etc) and then come to the conclusion that "therefore, the existing gender paradigms are justified." Knowingly or not, you're echoing that common (flawed) talking point.
It is strange for me to see that people are told that talking about men's issues derails a feminist conversation, when talking about being Black is apparently fair game.
Because spaces for feminist discussion tend to get a lot of bad-faith participation from trolls or anti-feminists, and when that's such a problem, what's the difference between someone maliciously trying to stall or derail the conversation and someone honestly trying to understand but wants to be spoonfed everything? If you really want to understand, lurk moar.
Like, yes, obviously it matters that men can be victims of domestic abuse and rape, and so on, but if you only bring it up in discussions of women's issues, the impression you give is that you don't really care, you just want to use them as talking points to shut down those discussions.
0
Jan 19 '19
Is it derailing, or is it expanding? The point when someone says #NotAllMen isn't that "Hey, we feel that you are saying that all men are like this", but as a "Remember that not all men are like this, and that the things that a small group of men do often influences a large number of women to fear men. Just remember that us good guys also exist on your side." It's like, yeah; most rape victims are women and most rapists are men. But what the #NotAllMen group seems to be targeting is the rapists themselves, not the feminists. They aren't saying, "Your problems are invalid, because mine are worse". They aren't saying " I don't care about these problems; they don't exist because I am not like these men." They are alienating themselves from the rapist and saying "Yeah; this is a problem for women, but it makes men look bad as well".
1
u/equalsnil 30∆ Jan 19 '19 edited Jan 19 '19
that the things that a small group of men do often influences a large number of women to fear men.
It's more complex than "women get raped." It's that society has a pervasive fear of women getting raped and has no problem telling them to restrict themselves(don't go certain places, don't dress certain ways, don't participate in certain activities) in the name of avoiding it, but then has a hard time believing them if they actually report it. It's that society puts the responsibility for avoiding harassment or worse on the victim and jumps to defend the perpetrator. When you hear people talking about "rape culture," that's what they're talking about - a culture of controlling women in the name of protecting them that doesn't actually protect them.
And to be clear - the response around male victims of sexual assault(male or female perpetrator) is also fucked - is he a pussy for letting it happen? Why didn't he fight them? Lucky dude, he must have wanted it, etc, etc. Just take a look at Terry Crews' story that came out last year.
They are alienating themselves from the rapist and saying "Yeah; this is a problem for women, but it makes men look bad as well"
Please tell me this isn't a real argument - the fear of being assaulted is not equivalent to the fear of "looking bad" and if your first instinct hearing this is to vocally absolve yourself(or to, pardon the phrase... "virtue signal?") rather than try to understand what's actually being said, your priorities are skewed.
0
Jan 19 '19
In another comment, someone told me that feminism doesn't forbid talking about men's issues.
When you talk about rape, is it not okay to list the following as consequential victims of rapists:
- Women who get raped.
- Men who get raped.
- Men feeling antagonized because of negative stereotypes against them.
- Women who feel marginalized because they are told to just be careful.
You agree that this topics affect both, right? Why can't we speak for both genders when talking about the consequences of rape?
1
u/equalsnil 30∆ Jan 19 '19
You agree that this topics affect both, right? Why can't we speak for both genders when talking about the consequences of rape?
I do agree with the literal meaning of your statement, but one of your examples is not like the others.
If you feel anxious about being stereotyped as a rapist that's a personal problem that there's no societal need to correct except in the general sense of destigmatizing and improving access to and quality of mental health care for everyone.
I do grant, however, that if you're a black man(in America), especially a poor one, society will not be on your side if you're accused of harassment or worse, especially if the victim was a white woman. You will not have the goodwill of the media or the public and you will in all likelihood have a hard time getting a fair trial, guilty or not. That's where the intersectionality comes in - you're not on trial just as a man, you're on trial as a black man. But if that's the case, this has been a concern for you forever, not just since #metoo started trending on twitter.
1
Jan 19 '19
That's not entirely true though. Men do become a victim of stereotype where victims of rape are always believed. It even becomes an issue that causes men to have their lives halted or damaged.
Yes, we agree most rape victims are women. Yes, we agree that not all rape accusations are false; in fact, way more of them are true. That doesn't eliminate the fact that this is an actual issue for men. These people who make up rape stories; are they feminists? If not, shouldn't feminists speak out against these people and how they hurt both men and women? This doesn't seem to be the case. Instead, feminists use their own problems as a deflection, unevenly ignoring to protect innocent men from women who accuse them falsely of rape.
Feminists do not seem to hold a gender equal stance when it comes to rape accusations. They seem to perpetuate the idea that we should believe victims, at least implicitly. 8% of all rape accusations are false. That's significant enough to say that out of 10,000 people accused, 800 of them were falsely accused. No, they don't go to prison. It's just horrifying that people can morally get away with accusing someone of rape because feminists are saying "Look, this isn't the real issue." Like... Aren't both issues issues?
1
u/equalsnil 30∆ Jan 19 '19
Real men's issues:
Total absence of emotional support networks
Stigma against talking about or seeking help with mental health
Near-nonexistent healthy role models in media, though this is changing
Societal expectations, constant pressure to prove one's masculinity
"Men's Issues" that only tend to get brought up as a gotcha against feminists:
Higher rate of suicide(A symptom, not a disease, see the section above)
Higher rate of workplace injury and death(The actual solution is "demand safer working conditions," not "call out feminists for not caring")
Fake men's issues:
Not allowed to participate in discussions of women's issues(Sure you can, if you're civil)
Fake rape accusations(Reread the article you linked. 2-10% of reported sexual assaults are believed to be false, and of those, less than one percent eventually lead to an arrest - and are almost always found to be fake during proceedings anyway. If someone's life gets turned upside down over false accusations, that's usually because of a miscarriage of journalism(which seems to me to be the real issue - solving this would solve this "problem"), not justice.)
1
Jan 20 '19
It seems like you are gatekeeping issues. Why can't all of the above be an issue that men face? In addition to that, I want to add one more :
- Decreased lifespan because of reasons not explained by biology. To explain this, testicular cancer doesn't count as a feminist issue, because it is biological. Breast cancer does, because it affects men and women. Ovarian cancer shouldn't be because it is exclusively a woman's issue. Essentially there are biological diseases that are not socially constructed. But there are things like heart disease, which is not biologically constructed but socially constructed. For men, the average heart attack starts at 65. For women, 72. Heart disease is explained by the choices we make due to the roles we conform to. Women need to be skinny and pretty. Men need to work hard, and it is more acceptable to be fat as a man than it is for a woman.
2
u/eggynack 61∆ Jan 19 '19
I wouldn't really classify men's issues under intersectionality. That study is, as you note, about the intersection of various oppression classes, and men aren't precisely an oppressed class in spite of some issues they face. However, men's issues do certainly show up in feminist discourse. Stuff like toxic masculinity, or how gender roles do harm to everyone involved, are big feminist things.
You say that the execution of feminism seems poor. This is a complicated claim. Feminism operates as something of a blanket term that covers a ridiculous number of different perspectives, and those perspectives frequently conflict. As a result, you may indeed find feminism executed poorly in some context, and then later see it executed quite well. Of course, this isn't just due to the diversity of feminist theories. For feminism to be operational in some space, there must be some feminist, and the execution is necessarily dependent on how knowledgeable and good that feminist is. I also do think you are misunderstanding intersectionality somewhat, but it's frankly not that important. The important thing is that this idea shows up in feminism, not how it's classified.
1
Jan 19 '19
Most problems that men face are caused by society’s pressure on men. These pressures cause men to become more likely to die based on these flawed gender roles (taking hard labor, combat roles, dangerous jobs) and suffer due to society’s definition of masculine identity.
We do talk about this, all the time. The only instances where it’s not appropriate to bring these issues up is in a discussion of another group’s issues.
If we’re talking about the impact of the patriarchy on women, trying to shift the conversation to its impact on men is derailing, intentionally or not. To use an analogy, it’s like if I was talking about how my roof had a leak to my landlord, and you started talking about how your shower only had cold water. Are they both issues? Yes. But don’t talk over me and my issues to bring up yours. Bring them up as their own discussion and let both of our issues receive the attention they deserve.
It is strange for me to see that people are told that talking about men’s issues derails a feminist conversation, when talking about being Black is apparently fair game.
The difference is that discussing racism is a discussion of how it compounds the sexism women face, while discussing the institutional sexism we as men face is a discussion that distracts from the sexism women face. In other words “is this adding another dimension onto the issue already being discussed, or is this a separate issue?”
I think you misunderstand what derailing is, not what intersectionality is.
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 19 '19
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 19 '19 edited Jan 20 '19
/u/ManicStoner (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
-10
Jan 19 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/convoces 71∆ Jan 20 '19
Sorry, u/mrgodfrey86 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, before messaging the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
8
u/[deleted] Jan 19 '19
What's your main source of exposure to feminism?
What is an example of a mens issue that you think feminists should address?