Male Feminists

Morag

Mary Kenny thought he was a liberal rather then a feminist but he did describe himself as a feminist and on the late late show no less.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mary-kenny-a-selfprofessed-feminist-who-was-devoted-to-women-in-his-life-2652737.html

A self-professed feminist who was devoted to women in his life

THE late Garret FitzGerald was sometimes described as a feminist, in that he sought to advance the liberation of women.

He certainly thought of himself as a feminist, and in his own life, he never omitted the influence of his mother, and never failed to show both devotion and respect to his wife: and if we judge a man by his actions more than his words, he certainly passed that test.

He also actively sought to bring women into politics and was both mentor and guide to Gemma Hussey and the late Nuala Fennell, who had such successful political careers under his stewardship. With the full support and encouragement of Garret, Nuala brought through a bill which abolished the archaic status of illegitimacy in Ireland, which had previously stigmatised those born outside of marriage.

But there were some clashes: and I recall a notable episode on a 'Late Late Show' in 1970 when Gay Byrne had assembled a group of us radical feminists, including Nell McCafferty, June Levine and myself, to devote the whole programme to the subject of Irish women's liberation. It was one of the first times we had the opportunity to speak about this new wave of feminism in the public realm. But halfway through the programme, Gay Byrne suddenly announced that Garret FitzGerald had been sitting watching the show at home and had felt so engaged by the subject that he asked if he could come and join us, and Gay had eagerly agreed.

The announcement was greeted by a sustained, and entirely spontaneous, orchestra of booing from the assembled group of women, panel and audience. "You're hijacking our show!" we cried. There was huge resentment, both of Gay and of Garret, that these two men couldn't have let the women have their say, uninterrupted, without trying to muscle in on the act. Garret, all innocence, protested that he was a male feminist.

Oh, yeah? Maybe so, we all agreed afterwards, but he is also a politician. And a politician knows just when to jump on a bandwagon. Even if he was sincere -- and he certainly was sincere -- the prevailing feeling of the sisters was that men just won't let women speak without putting their oar in. It's the "pasha complex": in a hareem of women under the Ottomans, you had to have the male, the pasha, take charge.

All the obituarists are right about Garret FitzGerald: he was a decent man, a true patriot, a fine intellectual, and an original political presence who advanced the cause of peace and reconciliation.

His intellectual side had a brilliant edge, sometimes. He was once placed next to Margaret Thatcher at an official European dinner, and Francois Mitterand, the French president was at the next seat along. Garret and Mitterand spoke French literally over Mrs Thatcher's head, mostly discussing the works of French Catholic writers of the 1930s. Mrs Thatcher was puzzled about this discourse about the likes of Georges Bernanos and Francois Mauriac: her father, Alderman Roberts, had taught her that the French were decadent and she quizzed Garret about his common cultural ground with Mitterand.

But was Garret, as so widely claimed, a feminist? He was really more of a liberal, with a sympathetic opening to feminism. It is sometimes assumed that liberalism and feminism go together, but it isn't always so: radical feminism is more akin to Marxist thinking, and separatist feminism has more in common with a kind of puritanism. Remember that the original slogan of the Suffragettes, under the Pankhursts was: "Votes for women, and chastity for men!" Even in 1911, there was a feminist element which believed that all men were potential rapists.

The divorce referenda in Ireland brought out some of that tension between liberalism and feminism. As part of a programme to modernise Ireland, and enhance the notion of pluralism, Garret sought to delete the constitutional prohibition against divorce. Liberal feminists were certainly supportive of this -- Nuala Fennell, for example, had done a lot of research on broken marriages and realised that it was altogether necessary to have a provision for divorce.

Yet, some feminists thought the approach precipitate: you had to introduce property law first, which would give a divorced wife the entitlement to half of the marital property before you went about dissolving marriages. Women from a rural background were particularly aware of this. I remember my late friend and radical feminist Mary Cummins being furious about divorce proposals in 1986: "What would you do with the family farm? Women would be out on their ear!"

Small wonder it took nearly 10 years to get through a plebiscite on divorce: and even then, in 1995, the result was on a knife-edge. In rural Ireland, marriage has always had a financial dimension. Garret was a sophisticated intellectual, and sophisticated intellectuals can miss some of these bread-and-butter points.

A liberal is not the same as a radical, either, and in the great condom debate, many liberals were careful to tread prudently. It's just 40 years ago this Sunday that our group of feminists carried out the famous 'condom train' stunt -- provocatively bringing condoms back from Belfast and declaring them at the customs. Liberals, such as Mary Robinson, declined to be part of it -- it seemed a touch vulgar at the time .

In Dail Eireann, my recollection is that not a single TD, with the exception of the mavericks Dr John O'Connell and Dr Noel Browne, spoke up for the free availability of condoms. Garret would proceed at his own pace towards changing the law: and that is what a wise politician does -- he must lead, but he must not be too far ahead of public opinion. He was a lovely person and a great Irishman, and he respected women fully: but he was, in the end, more of a liberal than a feminist.

- Mary Kenny

Millicent

johnr1 wrote: »

Now that I think of it, I suppose it's not such a surprise that this war erupted. It's been brewing in skirmishes here and in TLL for a while now, but I suppose at least it's happening in a semi neutral space.

Seriously though, it's divisive sh1t, and really solves nothing, only widens gaps of misunderstanding. I found it hard to read without getting angry because of stuff said on both sides. I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

I can say genuinely, I stand by everything I have said here and would say it in discussion. I don't think, except when severely pushed, that I have been rude or disrespectful to anyone and even when pushed, I don't think I have been rude but merely angry or saddened. I can't say the same of a lot (not all) of those on the opposite side of the argument. The ferocity and anger behind some of those posts is telling, IMO.

For my part, and again as a feminist, I will happily discuss any aspect of my beliefs or others' beliefs with relish. I have had my mind changed on issues in the past and am open to being challenged. I am not open to being shouted down, called a radical, chauvinist, hypocrite or having a persecution complex, simply because I subscribe to a certain ideology.

later12

johnr1 wrote: »

N
Seriously though, it's divisive sh1t, and really solves nothing, only widens gaps of misunderstanding. I found it hard to read without getting angry because of stuff said on both sides. I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

Parts of the thread have been a little carcrash but that's inevitable on any 30 page thread on any topic, let alone something as divisive as this. I think there have been some interesting aspects to the debate aside from all of that. As Millicent suggested, I think most of this was dialogue people could reasonably expect to have in real life.

K-9

johnr1 wrote: »

I have yet to encounter a bigger trainwreck of a thread on boards.

The bad feeling from this type of pointless viciousness is harmful to the community that is AH.

I'm not a feminist as far as my understanding of the word goes.

I do believe in equality of opportunity for both sexes, and will generally fight discrimination against either sex.


But to berate an orginisation founded on fighting for women's equality for not fighting for men's equality is ludicrious. FFS, grow a pair of balls, and fight your own battles. Found a men's movement if you believe we are worse off in general, rather than blaming a women's movement for it.

This isn't a trainwreck, AH debates on feminism 2 years ago was a fecking multiple car crash, screens everywhere, live on TV!

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

Mary Kenny thought he was a liberal rather then a feminist but he did describe himself as a feminist and on the late late show no less.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/mary-kenny-a-selfprofessed-feminist-who-was-devoted-to-women-in-his-life-2652737.html

I'd say they were the big issues of the time.

Garret these days? Big supporter of Fathers Rights, righting wrongs from the Divorce legislation, or well, courts interpretation of it.

Still tackling areas women have it tough.

You have to remember Ireland was a very different place 30 years ago, much as we like to disparage where we are now!

Morag

K-9 wrote: »

You have to remember Ireland was a very different place 30 years ago, much as we like to disparage where we are now!

Yes many things have changed and improved but while the laws may have changed societal attitudes in many respects have not.

Which is were the empowerment aspect of feminism comes into play in encouraging women to assert their rights, to use the laws which were put in place and to avail of opportunities which their mothers didn't have.

later12

K-9 wrote: »

This isn't a trainwreck, AH debates on feminism 2 years ago was a fecking multiple car crash, screens everywhere, live on TV!

Yes, but I wonder if anyone has altered their opinion?

I think I would like to correct my first assertion in the OP that feminism can be taken to mean greater equality between the sexes, because I think might have been dodgy reasoning--but it can can lead to greater equality between the sexes, I would suggest.

Other than that I think my opinion is largely intact, which is always a suspicious occurrance after a long debate. And I daresay the opposing side has kept its opinions intact as well. So has this argument achieved anything except entrenched opinions I wonder?

Morag

I think it has, I am looking at a thread on feminism in AH which has run to over 11 pages at 40 posts per page. It has run this long and been an actual discussion. If anyone had of asked me if this was possible I would have said no.
Every time I have logged in over the last 24 hours I expected it to be a train wreck and locked.

Fair play to the mods and the contributors.

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

Yes many things have changed and improved but while the laws may have changed societal attitudes in many respects have not.

Which is were the empowerment aspect of feminism comes into play in encouraging women to assert their rights, to use the laws which were put in place and to avail of opportunities which their mothers didn't have.

Well as a political realist and cynic, I can't provide answers, just critics!

There's been no Garret socially or Dukes economically and patriotically in over 20 years, nobody willing to lead and take a risk.

Some societal attitudes have changed, fathers are generally far more hands on, I think they've reached a block, where so many women don't want to cede too much to fathers willing to be hands on. God knows, maybe they think they'll be redundant, I don't have a clue.

Personally I find the answer in Mad Men quotes! So many truisms! All this fighting over isms and the only one that won was consumerism!

later10 wrote: »

Yes, but I wonder if anyone has altered their opinion?

I think I would like to correct my first assertion in the OP that feminism can be taken to mean greater equality between the sexes, because I think might have been dodgy reasoning--but it can can lead to greater equality between the sexes, I would suggest.

Other than that I think my opinion is largely intact, which is always a suspicious occurrance after a long debate. And I daresay the opposing side has kept its opinions intact as well. So has this argument achieved anything except entrenched opinions I wonder?

All you can hope is some take on a bit of the other side, which means both sides taking account a little of the other side.

Then you are a centrist, a sell out.

later12

I wish we always had these "what have we learned" episodes after we feel a thread winding down. Reminds me of study revision:pac:

Morag

Well as a realist and cynic, I find myself wondering is it cos it's a thread from a male perspective, started by a person who I presume is male about male feminists that the thread found traction and wasn't derailed and ridiculed as other threads about feminism have been.

K-9

Sharrow wrote: »

Well as a realist and cynic, I find myself wondering is it cos it's a thread from a male perspective, started by a person who I presume is male about male feminists that the thread found traction and wasn't derailed and ridiculed as other threads about feminism have been.

Honestly? No. Threads about Feminism tend to attract the same posters on both sides, regardless of gender. The insults about the OP may change, but nope.

Thread would have been different if a female OP started it, moreso the order of replies.

AH isn't the same as 2 years ago.

Scanlas The 2nd

Kooli wrote: »

Millicent and Dudess, just found this thread now and haven't read it all, just the last couple of pages, but just wanted to say well done for sticking around, I don't know if I'd have the patience. I think you've both been really patient, reasonable and (probably too) tolerant.

To have a bunch of men say that feminists should be campaigning for men's rights or they can't call themselves feminists frankly beggars belief.

Unbelievable levels of mansplaining going on in this thread and well done to both of you for not being silenced.

Hope this post doesn't come across as patronising, but I know it can often be sooooo much easier to just give up when the people who are arguing against you make it so clear they have no interest in trying to understand your point of view, and just want to prove you wrong that you can end up wondering what the point is?

But back on topic, most of the really smart, kind, skeptical and self-aware men I know are feminists, and they are wonderful!

Read the definition of feminism. It's very simple.

How about I tell people im a vegetarian even though I eat meat.

Scanlas The 2nd

later10 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

When exactly did I say it's unfair feminists don't campaign for men's rights. What I said was its hypocritical if the definition of feminism you provided me is correct.

And as you seemed to agree earlier, you could apply this to practically any other group in society from disability action groups, to fathers' rights groups, to gay rights groups, to civil rights campaigners in places like the USA or Northern Ireland, to the Irish association for the Unemployed (why are those bastards arbitrarily limiting their concern to the Irish!!!!)

You could do that, in theory, but nobody ever seems to do so.

This issue of hypocrisy is the first time I've ever seen this suggestion in relation to any such social group, and to be quite honest I did think it was a good question when I first read it. Then I thought about it and decided it doesn't much logistical sense.

One cannot, in practice, campaign for everything at the same time. Nor can one avoid self-appointed tags, nor tags appointed by other people when one simply finds any single group's cause to be particularly appealing to them personally, or at any period in time.

What I am still trying to figure out,and maybe you can help explain to me, is why this question doesn't quite seem to apply to other movements in the way that has arisen in this thread? Are none of you interested in why the Irish movement for the unemployed is not interested in the Irish employee, let alone the British, French, Zulu or Uruguayan unemployed?

What we're talking about now is feminism though.
In order to be a feminist you don't have to campaign for numerous things at once. All you have to do is campaign of equality of the sexes, but people who call themselves feminists don't do that. They campaign for the increase of female rights.

If someone starts a thread about a male movement whose prime objective is equality of the sexes but only campaign to increase male rights then I'll post and say its bullsh1t.

As for the Irish movement for the unemployed, I don't know anything about them so can't comment.

Nana Wan

agree

Scanlas The 2nd

yawha wrote: »

Christ. This is the biggest load of semantic, nit picking bollocks I have ever read. No, there aren't many feminist groups actively campaigning for fathers rights etc., but that doesn't mean they can't say they are for equality between the sexes, nor does it mean anyone can assert that they actively wish to discriminate against men, because that's absolutely baseless.

"Feminism" means a lot of things. There's no "TRUE FEMINISM", as Scanlas puts it. From what I can see, it's generally social justice rather than legal rights that most branches of feminism are about these days. And we have a long way to go there.

There's no true vegetarianism either, you can eat meat and still be a vegetarian.

Zulu

johnr1 wrote: »

...I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

Millicent wrote: »

I can say genuinely, I stand by everything I have said here and would say it in discussion.

I'd happily echo that. In this thread, although pushed (and snorted at! :eek: ) I remained civil and respectful.

I would note that the amount of ad homenim attacks & indirect snides has been appaling.

yawha

Vegetarianism is a practice based on one core principle - not eating meat.

Feminism is a hugely wide and complex collection of social movements. Your comparison is absurd.

Do you have a point besides arguing semantics?

Scanlas The 2nd

yawha wrote: »

Vegetarianism is a practice based on one core principle - not eating meat.

Feminism is a hugely wide and complex collection of social movements. Your comparison is absurd.

Do you have a point besides arguing semantics?

My point is feminism is about equality of the sexes but we don't see so called feminists fighting for equality, we see them fighting for increasing women's rights which isn't the same. Have you any reasonable counter argument to this?

Its more than semantics as so called feminists claim to care about equality of the sexes?

44leto

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My point is feminism is about equality of the sexes but we don't see so called feminists fighting for equality, we see them fighting for increasing women's rights which isn't the same. Have you any reasonable counter argument to this?

Its more than semantics as so called feminists claim to care about equality of the sexes?

With the civil rights movement in America and South Africa the blacks were campaigning for equality which by token they were campaigning to increase their rights. So by your logic if you are coming from a state of inferior rights in a society you are really campaigning for more rights.

So yes campaigning for equality is off course campaigning for more rights.

Now I take it you are a man and you see women gathering more rights on the road to equality as taking privileges from you and our sex of which we enjoyed for millennium, I see that as moral and they have a right to those and I support them in their fight.

jaja321

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

jaja321 wrote: »

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

jaja321 wrote: »

Another reason there should be parental leave as opposed to maternity leave so that either the man or woman can take the leave or share it as they see fit. It is downright discrimination to hire a man over an equally qualified woman, purely based on the fact that she may go on to have children.

It would be 'downright disrimination' to hire a man over a woman if there wasn't such a thing as maternity leave. Since there is, hiring a man over a woman of a certain age (say 25 - 40) and all other things being equal is just common sense

Based on that logic, any job I apply for, an equally qualified man should be hired instead of me, purely based on the fact that I have a womb. It is discrimination. Parental leave is a possible solution to this.

No it's not purely because you have a womb, if I had a womb surgically inserted I wouldn't be discriminated against. You are discriminated against for the likelihood of you reducing profitability and/or increasing work load for others.

How do u know what the likelihood of that is? The previous poster said that any woman aged 25-40 should be passed over for an equally qualified man, based on that presumption. Effectively halting women's opportunity to progress their careers. What I suggest is parental leave, whereby the parents can decide themselves who takes the leave based on their own situation. What is wrong with that? I thought you said you believed in equality??!

--Kaiser--

Dudess wrote: »

Borderline bullying of Millicent here

Pathetic. She's arguing a point, others are arguing against her. Is she not capable of standing up for herself? I have never witnessed a male use the 'bullying' card in a discussion, only females. Does she need special treatment because she's female, or does she wanted to be treated like everyone else?

Bannasidhe

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What we're talking about now is feminism though.
In order to be a feminist you don't have to campaign for numerous things at once. All you have to do is campaign of equality of the sexes, but people who call themselves feminists don't do that. They campaign for the increase of female rights.

If someone starts a thread about a male movement whose prime objective is equality of the sexes but only campaign to increase male rights then I'll post and say its bullsh1t.

As for the Irish movement for the unemployed, I don't know anything about them so can't comment.

You obviously don't know much about feminism either but sadly that hasn't prevented you commenting.

No matter how you try and spin it - Campaigning for men and women to have the same rights is the same thing as campaigning for equality.

Same rights = equality.

Be that between men and women/Gay and Straight/Black and White/ Religious and Atheist. All treated equally.
Is that really so hard to get your head around?

Scanlas The 2nd

44leto wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

My point is feminism is about equality of the sexes but we don't see so called feminists fighting for equality, we see them fighting for increasing women's rights which isn't the same. Have you any reasonable counter argument to this?

Its more than semantics as so called feminists claim to care about equality of the sexes?

With the civil rights movement in America and South Africa the blacks were campaigning for equality which by token they were campaigning to increase their rights. So by your logic if you are coming from a state of inferior rights in a society you are really campaigning for more rights.

So yes campaigning for equality is off course campaigning for more rights.

Now I take it you are a man and you see women gathering more rights on the road to equality as taking privileges from you and our sex of which we enjoyed for millennium, I see that as moral and they have a right to those and I support them in their fight.

If someone claims that equality of race is of utmost importance but ignores situations where there own race has unfair advantages then they are bullsh1tters. Simple as that and I don't understand how any reasonable person can't agree with this. The logic is very simple.

Bannasidhe

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Borderline bullying of Millicent here

Pathetic. She's arguing a point, others are arguing against her. Is she not capable of standing up for herself? I have never witnessed a male use the 'bullying' card in a discussion, only females. Does she need special treatment because she's female, or does she wanted to be treated like everyone else?

Millicent has been admirable in her patience, reasoned responses to unreasonable attacks. She is more than capable of defending herself but does that mean that others cannot comment on some of the insults being flung at her? Really? We should stay silent when we see attacks launched against someone who has shown themselves to be both reasonable and fair?
Not in this lifetime mate!

I haven't seen one female poster on this thread launch any kind of personal attacks against critic of feminism - I wish the reverse could be said to be true.

44leto

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If someone claims that equality of race is of utmost importance but ignores situations where there own race has unfair advantages then they are bullsh1tters. Simple as that and I don't understand how any reasonable person can't agree with this. The logic is very simple.

Yeah the American blacks had an advantage, they were usually better at basketball, music, being badly educated and being poor.

All key indicators still have women at a disadvantage. I will be honest, if I was an employer and I had the choice of a women candidate or a man for either employment or promotion I would choose the man. Not because I believe women are less capable, they are not, but I believe women are more problematic because of child birth and what goes with that.

NOW CLEARLY that attitude is wrong, it is discriminatory and morally WRONG, now they have to legislate to prevent that attitude. But I know it still goes on.

Scanlas The 2nd

44leto wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If someone claims that equality of race is of utmost importance but ignores situations where there own race has unfair advantages then they are bullsh1tters. Simple as that and I don't understand how any reasonable person can't agree with this. The logic is very simple.

Yeah the American blacks had an advantage, they were usually better at basketball, music, being badly educated and being poor.

All key indicators still have women at a disadvantage. I will be honest, if I was an employer and I had the choice of a women candidate or a man for either employment or promotion I would choose the man. Not because I believe women are less capable, they are not, but I believe women are more problematic because of child birth and what goes with that.

NOW CLEARLY that attitude is wrong, it is discriminatory and morally WRONG, now they have to legislate to prevent that attitude. But I know it still goes on.

I would expect that feminists would more often seek increases in women'srights, but the fact I have never come across feminist campaigns for increases in men's rights leads me to believe these so called feminists are hypocryts and equality of gender isn't really the primary goal.

Dudess

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Pathetic.

Yeah, the attempts to depict her as a radical man-hater were pretty pathetic all right.

Millicent

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Pathetic. She's arguing a point, others are arguing against her. Is she not capable of standing up for herself? I have never witnessed a male use the 'bullying' card in a discussion, only females. Does she need special treatment because she's female, or does she wanted to be treated like everyone else?

Right, and have you seen the names I have been called and the slurs against my character throughout the thread? I am more than capable of speaking for myself, but don't be so disingenuous as to suggest that because I'm a woman I need someone to ride to my rescue. That's the not the situation and if you think it is, read the thread again.

Dudess

Zulu wrote: »

johnr1 wrote: »

...I dont think either group would address the other in these terms face to face.

Millicent wrote: »

I can say genuinely, I stand by everything I have said here and would say it in discussion.

I'd happily echo that. In this thread, although pushed (and snorted at! :eek: ) I remained civil and respectful.

I would note that the amount of ad homenim attacks & indirect snides has been appaling.

Such as? Can't be as bad as pretending that a woman is a man-hater apropos nothing.
If I say that looks like deeper issues, I'm only speculating, not stating it as fact, but I have good grounds to suspect it. Guys who are happy in themselves and when it comes to women don't resort to such odious sh1t.