I can already tell by this post that you’re one of the ‘white people can’t experience racism’ or ‘women can’t be sexist’ power,privilege rah rah rah etc etc crew.

I was careful to say "necessarily", Brillo, I'm far from an intellectual snob (I didn't finish my degree and I'm in retail management ffs) but my point is that saying that ALL (of any group) is going to know more about something than ALL (of any other group) is wrong... And therefore, excluding all of any group from a discussion on any topic is also wrong.

Not on as deep a scale. Unless you’re talking about Jews and then I’d agree. Definitely not Western Europeans.

I pretty much agree with everything Toy Soldier has very succinctly wrote.

My opinion is that if feminists want more men (and women also) to get board then drop the term ‘feminism’ as it is absolutely 100% anti equality and outdated and make it more inclusive for everyone.Simple ‘equality’ or even ‘equalism’ would help things massively.
TS has already said this but when it’s set up as one team against another and framed as a battle then it’s doomed to failure as it becomes a war in which neither side backs down.
Feminism is divisive and doesn’t work in modern times where equality is supposed to be the thing.
Society is supposed to be trying to get away from division now.

Feminism simply means believing women are equal to men, nothing more, so why on earth is it divisive. It is not a dirty word.

There is a big difference between ‘equality being the thing’ and people actually practising what they preach.

You can't get away from division by pretending it doesn't exist though

The meaning of a word changes over time; it may have meant simply that once, but it's meaning has become so convoluted and complex that at this point it barely means anything. Even people who claim to subscribe to the same "branch" of feminism can't agree on a definition.

True, but you certainly can't get away from it by encouraging it?

As I said in another post... men have set the agenda since the beginning of time, and now things are slowly changing, men want to take on the Feminist agenda too. I'm quite clear on what it means to be a feminist. It is not divisive, it is not sexist... and it appertains to women. So why any man would want to set the agenda is beyond me. Apart from that, men can be as involved as they like. But this is something they can't lead.

Acknowledging inequality between the sexes and wanting to do something about it is doing the opposite to encouraging it.

You could say the same about the word Muslim. But I don't know anyone who isn't aware that it's a minority that do the damage, and it's the same with feminists.

But this is still the language of division? Which "team" gets to set the agenda, which "group" used to be in charge. But who does "get to" set the agenda? Which group of women? Because they don't all agree... And the idea that "women will get to set the agenda!" relies on the false premise that "women kind" are some sort of homogenous creature in full agreement. The only thing that matters is that progress is made and equality is achieved. Is it even about setting the agenda? Is it not just about constant discussion and adjustment all round?

It's the same with literally everything because people will be people, a small percentage of football fans give football fans a bad name etc etc

...I understand what Livia is saying..like with BLM, obviously all lives matter equally but as we know, that’s not what the point and the need is about because black lives haven't felt equality, black lives have suffered suppression and they still strive for equality in many things..and yes, BLM need and appreciate the support of everyone/of white people also but white people cant and shouldn’t aim to suggest an agenda or ‘lead’...all they can do is support....and the same exactly with women and feminism and a man’s support of feminism...it’s actually a percpective I hadn’t considered before in the way Livia is explaining it..

..yeah I so see, I’ve always seen it all the way you do with ‘equality’...but as I say..with BLM, it could only be the ‘black team’ that could set the agenda, it wouldn’t be for the ‘white team’ to do that because it’s black people striving for equality and their lives to matter equally to white...as it wouldn’t be for anyone other than women to set the agenda of feminism...simply because it has to be that way because in both cases, that’s where the suppression lay and does lie..?..

But WHICH black people? WHICH women? The whole premise relies on the idea that all black people / all women have the same ideas, would go the same way, would set the same agenda. That they are the same, that they think the same things, have the same traits and ideas. I find that entire concept problematic in itself... That is the sort of thinking that LEADS to sexism. The concept that all members of "a grouping" have the same agenda is a form of prejudice in itself, whether that supposed agenda is a positive or negative one.

I don't think anyone is saying all black people have a hive mind. Just that in discussions/movements about racism, black people should be leading the way and basically, white people can support it and stand with the black people if they chose (and hopefully they would/do), but they do not get to tell black people what is or is not racist, or say 'oh well white people are treat badly too, what are you doing for them? Its not about equality if you are only concerned about black people and not white people'

Ditto feminism. Male allies, brilliant. Men telling women what is not sexist (or that women are now equal...), or saying that women should be focusing on mens rights, or anything like that is not.

Which black people.

Any black people tbh :laugh:

Edit. Also sorry edited that last comment so many times to try and get my point across and seemingly still didn't manage it. Am not the best at explaining what I mean but it makes sense in my head

The reason there are so many 'branches' of feminism is precisely because women do think differently. But the overall aim of all feminists is all the same, to free women from oppression.

Is a definition of feminism that I understand it to be. 'Wanting equality' is a bit too simplistic for me. But that may just be semantics

Vicky, I will use your post as an example for my thoughts.

@Red This is a stereotype.

Ok, now apply this to a "protected group"... this conversation would be a non-starter obviously, but we're "socialized" to disregard bias against men, particularly white men.

This is why I said I think using labels and groups is going backwards. It's going backwards on decades of growth in individualism, which I would argue is what ushered the modern era and our strides in equality. When see each other as individuals, this is progress... when start to see each other as labels and as members of a group, then that is going backwards, back to group think and tribalism.

When we inherit groupthink, it is automatically tribal from the outset, whereas with the individual, we are not accountable to a group, we are accountable to ourselves. Which means the payment for failure is quite low for groups, but much higher for an individual and more personally felt.

If the group fails to account for it's own biases or an individual misbehaves, the group won't really flench unless it threatens it's hierarchy and continues on it's own way. So as long as the individual stays well within the group's philosophy and don't do anything stupid like "betray" the group :laugh: then they will share the same protective ward of the rest of the group.

If the individual misbehaves on it's own, it's not empowered by the group, so no sense of immunity there, and therefore, much less likely to act out in a way that would face consequences for any sort of bigotry. (we see this on BB on every season)

This is why we've come as far as we have, because while there has always been a "community" in a much larger but looser sense of the term, the focus has been on the individual and we were not engaging in "group". Movements like these work waaaaay better when they enable individuals to speak for themselves, but not speak for them.

When we break ourselves into up into little groups, all we're doing is reusing the same exact weapons that created bias, in-equal treatment and prejudice throughout history. And those weapons are poisoned.

Yes it is a stereotype. Obviously not all men are like that (hence the 'so many'). It is a fact though, that men and women are socialized differently. Its something thats extremely hard to disregard as its almost ingrained. I have tried to 'decondition' myself from the urge to be nice, and allow others to take centre stage and such. I seem to have almost managed it sometimes but then I lapse right back and its ****ing annoying :laugh: Its not something thats even conscious so much of the time.

There are literally endless studies on male/female socialization, so its not really a stereotype such as..I don't know..blonde people are stupid or something. A totally random (and offensive in this case) grouping. Socialization is a very very real thing, that affects almost all people.

I completely recognise my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male, and agree with the importance of acknowledging one's social standing before passing judgement on issues of social exclusion and discrimination. I do however find it a bit rich and amusing that a few of the people who have been asking for such in both this and other threads over the last few days, are routinely those who freely pass judgement, denigrate or indeed minimise issues that affect other marginalised groups they are not a part of, like Muslims, BME people or members of the LGBT+ community. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

That brings me on nicely to my answer to the thread title, however. I think feminism (and, actually, many other social causes) should be intersectional. Women are not one universalised, homogeneous group who are marginalised in all the same way. It is important to recognise how the many other axes of identity that make up a person will position them very differently to others. Rather than seeing the plight of women and black people as fundamentally different, we should instead use intersectionality as a frame of reference to position individuals as marginalised under several different strands of social identity. To put it another way, the issues facing a white, heterosexual, middle class, (temporarily) able-bodied woman are never going to be the same as those facing a black, homosexual, working class, disabled woman. The former, while still a woman, is privileged in multiple ways that the latter is not. Issues of social injustice transgress many different social axes, and to truly understand (and resolve) the marginalisation that a person may face, we must first use intersectionality as an analytical tool.

Here's a great TED Talk from the woman who coined the term back in 1989, Kimberlé Crenshaw:



Now, the history of and different strands of feminism are far beyond the scope of a post on a Big Brother forum, and indeed any one piece of literature - but for anyone interested here's a useful starting point for an overview of the equality-difference debate integral to a lot of feminist scholarship:

https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup...0335204155.pdf

(The chapter entitled Equal or Different? The Perennial Feminist Problematic, pp. 8-24)

As regards the first paragraph we would all undoubtedly be or feel marginalised if we went to live in a different country especially one with a very different culture and if we made little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising.

But to make a comparison with women born and raised here with a history going back centuries in exactly the same way as their male counterparts and who make up an equal percentage of the population and yet are still made to feel marginalized and second-class is not the same. It is not a credible comparison. To suggest so is a bit rich to say the least, although actually not so amusing. So get of your high horse.

You are, rather ironically as a feminist, using a minoritising view towards an issue of social exclusion there. Rather than a marginalised group being the product of societal attitudes and structural oppression, it is their fault and their problem - 'made very little effort to assimilate. Hardly that surprising'. That's nice.

You've also, unsurprisingly, completely missed the point of my post. I recognised my privilege as a white, (temporarily) able-bodied male immediately, and agreed that those arguing that a man's position on issues of female oppression are only valid to a certain extent - do in fact have a point. I was merely noting that a few of the posters (and yes, you are one of them) who were making such arguments, are also ones who routinely feel it is their place to pass judgement on, denigrate or even minimise the discrimination and marginalisation that other groups face - of which they have no personal stake or experience in. Like I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot argue that it isn't a man's place to talk about feminism and then ten minutes later as a heterosexual non-Muslim start saying that Islamaphobia is not a problem, or that the LGBT+ community need to "get over" something. Either you wish people to recognise their privilege before passing comment on social injustices - which is a perfectly legitimate request - or disagree with the sentiment entirely. You don't get to pick and choose which social causes you and others get to comment on. That's a high horse you need to step down from.