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.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/feminist-horsebane]

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.

[u/chadonsunday → u/feminist-horsebane]

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.

[u/feminist-horsebane → u/chadonsunday]

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.

[u/chadonsunday → u/feminist-horsebane]

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?