Should men be leaders in the feminist movement?

[boston bean]

26 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	yes
	14 (54%)
	no
	12 (46%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Zoeisright]

1. Why not?

My husband is more of a feminist than I am. He was the head of a women's shelter for years.

[liberal_at_heart]

11. bingo!

I guess you have to pass a gender litmus test to be a feminist. At this stage I'm not sure I want to be labeled a feminist if being exclusionary is required. Can you tell your husband thank you for me? That is heartwarming to hear that he lead a women's shelter.

[Warpy]

53. Men have important roles to fill

but not in leadership roles. There are too many things they can't possibly know without walking a mile or two in a woman's shoes and that is simply not possible.

They're necessary partners in the fight for what are essentially universal human rights. However, it's inappropriate for a male to try to determine the course of the fight for women's rights because he simply has no direct experience of the real problems and everything he does will be filtered through his own experience as a male.

Running a shelter and leading a movement are two different things.

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. I completely agree ...

a better way to express your final sentence, imo sPells out why men cannot be LEADERS in feminist movements:

Running a shelter and HAVING THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE WOMAN THAT MIGHT NEED THAT SHELTER makes leading a WOMANS' movement IMPOSSIBLE FOR MEN.

[Raksha]

95. I agree with you, which is why I voted no also.

Men are very much needed in a supportive role, but since as you say it's impossible for a man to walk a mile or two in a woman's shoes, he should not have a leadership role.

[mike_c]

2. I think that men can certainly do MUCH to assist the feminist movement...

...and "the feminist movement" is certainly not monolithic, which increases opportunities for men to participate. But leadership should and must come from women, if for no other reason than women must provide the ideological foundations for feminism. Otherwise, what? Men telling women what feminism means?

It's hard to see THAT succeeding.

[boston bean]

3. Thank you. One of the first responses I've seen on this that gets it.

And that shows and understanding of feminism.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. We don't have to get it

We can disagree if we so choose.

[boston bean]

13. On internet discussion boards, there is always a contrary opinion.

what's new?

[mike_c]

17. I'll go further now that you've gotten me thinking about this....

I think that even if men emerge as leaders in the feminist movement-- and I can imagine situations when they might, as all successful movements eventually find themselves building coalitions and accepting allies-- but even if they do, they must ALWAYS be prepared to step aside if female leaders take the movement in different directions because women OWN feminism. And that begs the definition of leadership, so I think it's true that men can be stewards of feminism, but the movement must always come from and be defined by women.

You know, when I meet with my union's women's and other caucus groups I am awed by their dedication to social justice and commitment to building viable feminist (and LGBT, and etc) movements. When I'm at their table I like to listen and learn. Seriously. They have a lot to say and teach.

[seabeyond]

25. i really appreciate your post. balanced and though out without having to defend.

thank you.

[snooper2]

84. So out of 100 "leaders" 5 can't be men..

Seems pretty narrow minded if you ask me

[Honeycombe8]

18. Ditto. nt

[HockeyMom]

28. I agree

[Warpy]

54. Thanks, Mike. You're a mensch

and you cut right through to what the problem is.

[KT2000]

4. Ha! A friend told me

that in environmental causes it is usually women who start the activism and after the organization has become established, men take over.

Can't prove this is true everywhere but it is true in what I see locally.

[Recursion]

5. Does the feminist movement need "leaders"?

Isn't self-direction part of the point?

[boston bean]

7. uh, every movement has leaders. I guess feminism doesn't deserve them now.

Why, cause it's a movement for womens issues?

[Recursion]

10. Does every movement have leaders?

Anonymous and Occupy might disagree.

(and, yes, I'm clearly talking 4th or 5th wave at this point.)

[boston bean]

12. And other movements like civil rights movements might disagree with you.

And within every organization or organization within a movement has leaders. Even Occupy. At the local level there are leaders. I've been to the meetings and you can tell that there are leaders.

Secondly, you can take the poll to mean... should men be leading the women in the movement. should their concerns be put above women. Should their view on feminism take precedence?

Should the 1percenters be able to make decisions for occupy? They could join, right? Or they couldn't join occupy?

[Recursion]

14. If you'll check, my answer was "no"

If I can help feminism I will but i'm skeptical of "leadership" as a concept lately.

[bigwillq]

6. Yes (nt)

[ananda]

8. Men should be standing right behind women on this issue!

Just as white people should be standing behind the minorities,
listening, supporting.

[one_voice]

48. Uh, no...

My white mother will stand right beside her black husband supporting and fighting when needed just as she need during the civil rights movement--then she was standing next to her black friends.

I will stand my white butt next to my Puerto Rican husband and bi-racial children when I support them.

I can guarantee you that they would strenuously disagree with you and NEVER ask us to stand behind them. How's that any better than asking them to stand behind us?

We cannot win struggles with people standing behind each other we must stand next to each other and support each other. We can listen quite well while standing next to one and another.

When my parents were first married my mom couldn't go with my dad to visit his family--they lived in Alabama--he didn't ask her to stay behind, he didn't go. He brought his family here to see him and didn't go there until my mom could ride in the front seat with him to see his family.

[Recursion]

15. Male allies should set clear unapologetic examples.

Is that "leadership"?

[seabeyond]

16. leadership with their gender, yes. allies and supporters of women, yes. nt

[boston bean]

22. If by example you mean supporting feminists and feminism

and not trying to tell them what you think feminism gets wrong, it would be a form of leadership by example.

But not necessarily a leader of the movement.

[Recursion]

27. I think I expressed myself badly.

The word "leadership" sometimes worries me. I think Feminism should pass the Bechdel test. Let's start there.

[boston bean]

31. The bechdel requires two women to speak to one another about something other than a male.

You are a male. How is this going to work?

[Recursion]

39. It works by me listening and two women talking

And with that, tacit.

[MADem]

19. My POV? Anyone who thinks that a person's ability to contribute to society's progress should be

limited by their sexual organs is -- like it or not, knowingly or not -- shopping a prejudiced attitude.

Should transgenders be similarly discriminated against?

Do ovaries offer up a certain "Je ne sais quois" that guarantee leadership abilities?

IF the person can lead, let them lead. We'll know they can lead by seeing how many follow.

[Egalitarian Thug]

20. Support, advocate? Certainly yes. Lead? No. n/t

[Romulus Quirinus]

21. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient:

all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. wow. You sure have a militant view of feminism.

I clearly have very different views on feminism than you. I guess in your eyes that means I'm not a feminist huh? I think it is best if I just steer clear of your threads. Have a good evening.

[boston bean]

26. No, it means we have differing views. Thanks for calling me militant.

In my circle of feminism, we don't attack women in that way.

[gollygee]

24. Should white people be leaders in racial civil rights movements?

Should straight people be leaders in gay rights/transgender rights movements?

No, we should be allies. And the feminist movement is similar in that.

[iiibbb]

29. Effective people should lead.

[boston bean]

30. It is mostly men who lead large corporations. They must be the only effective leaders out there..

right?

[iiibbb]

55. "Right"?

If you are trying to put words in my mouth, don't. People are effective or not. If someone is a good leader, gender is irrelevant.

[boston bean]

59. That is just not the case. There are leaders who aren't good leaders.

And the numbers show the men are the leaders of most organizations, companies and corporations.

I can't believe that is because they have better leadership skills.

That's the point I was trying to make. And I wasn't putting any words into your mouth.

[iiibbb]

60. A lot of corporations are poorly run

[smirkymonkey]

32. Should white people be leaders in the minority civil rights movement?

I think not. We can support them, but I don't think it our place to usurp their fight.

I remember in grad school going to an AA project. The school I went to was mostly upper middle class white men and women. Although we meant well, one woman who was a leader at the project told us straight out that we had no idea as to they were and where they were coming from and therefore we could not fight their fight.

She specifically said to me, "You, with the big blue eyes, do you think you can even understand our experience?" I said that I supposed I really couldn't. That was a turning point for me. As much as I wanted to help, I could never really, truly understand their experience and it would have been arrogant of me to suppose that I could have

[seabeyond]

34. could never really, truly understand their experience

thank you.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

36. So white people should excuse themselves from opinions on Black rights ?? THAT IS PURE IGNORANCE !!!

[gollygee]

40. Strawman alert!

Nobody said that. What was said is that white people shouldn't be leaders in their movement.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

72. Really? When?

[Warpy]

73. Any post that begins with "so" is likely to be a strawman

and your post was a perfect example of one.

This thread is about taking over a movement as a leader, not having opinions.

That is a strawman. You built him, now go take him out and play with him.

[seabeyond]

42. i listen to the african american community and support them fully. nt

[FrodosPet]

129. Even THESE members of the community?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022285384

[seabeyond]

130. he is a member of the black community fighting for their rights? wow, how to reach deep

to pull that out.

[obamanut2012]

109. no one said that

[smirkymonkey]

131. No. You don't get it. It's not that we should excuse ourselves from opinions or even offering

support. However, we do NOT and CANNOT ever completely understand their experience and therefore should not be leading their movements.

They need to drive the agenda. We can be allies and advocates, but we should never be so arrogant as to suggest that we know what is best for them when we have never walked a mile in their shoes.

[smirkymonkey]

38. Thanks! To be honest, I was a little offended at first, but I got it eventually.

I understand. I only wish men understood how women have a much different experience in the world than they do.

[seabeyond]

44. that is the bottom line. why men are offended i really do not get. it is obvious to me.

it is the assumption that our experience is really not that different. but that just tells me how clueless they are with our experience. instead of listening, they shout us down, then demand why we do not want their leadership.

call us hysterical, ignorant, and the topper.... sexist, lol. cause we dare to want a womans voice with a womans experience.

[smirkymonkey]

132. Thanks and Hi!

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. I am an advocate for the disabled. As a neurotypical person, I have relative privilege.

This position of privilege provides me with a position of power from which to advocate for their interests.

[boston bean]

37. Congrats, you have found an example where people with their faculties and physical health

can advocate for those that could not on their own. I notice you use the word advocate, which is different than what was asked in the OP.

Am I to take this analogy to mean that you think women, minorities and gay people do not have the mental acuity and physical ability to lead themselves?

Even though you voted no, in the poll... Is this just a flame bait reply? And that's why you gave the popcorn smiley?

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. a) feminism IS advocacy.

b) either I am or I am not privileged relative to women. If the former, history suggests that equality movements are more successful if their leadership is associated with members of the power class (e.g. Thomas Paine and William Lloyd Garrison)

Put it another way;
If the feminist movement feels at liberty to say "who gives a shit what men think?" then the underlying belief, (in contrast to the expressed rhetoric) is that men don't enjoy any meaningful social advantage.

[boston bean]

49. That is not what the feminist movement thinks nor what I think.

I think men can be allies, and can be advocates, but not lead the movement.

We are living in the 21st century, name me one other group, besides the disabled, who need able bodied and persons with mental acuity to lead them, that thinks their historical oppressor should lead them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. "that thinks their historical oppressor should lead them."

See, that's it.

An oppressed minority needs some degree of cooperation from the oppressing majority to effect social change. Same-sex marriage is now legal in Washington State because a significant number of straight voters support it

In contrast, men are neither oppressors nor the majority. Since you think that it's prudent to exclude men from leadership in the feminist movement, you clearly know it, too. If you felt that men were in a superior social position and therefore you couldn't do it without our help, you'd be singing a different tune.

... and if that were true, so would I.

[boston bean]

52. You agree they should not be leaders. I'm assuming for some far out reason, that has no

commonality with my thinking, from reading your responses to me.

What the reasons are.... to me are unknown at this point.

However, do you feel comfortable going to the HRC and telling them that they need to allow some of their oppressors power within the organization?

Do you feel the same way with civil rights groups. White people should lead them.

I just would love to know why women can't seem to have a place where they lead the movement.

I know, yes I know, that it hardly ever happens in real life, but by golly, women should lead the feminist movement.

I don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp. Of course there can be any number of allies from differing back grounds and causes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. "No commonality" is an accurate assumption.

What is the HRC?

It is patently obvious that oppressed minorities need to create change within the attitudes of the oppressing majority to effect change. Malcom X and MLK needed LBJ to get the job done.

If an oppressed minority acts on the basis that the attitudes, beliefs and behavior of the oppressing majority are irrelevant, they either fail or thereby admit that the underlying paradigm is a myth.

[boston bean]

76. The people leading the movement for change to force politicians

to enact legislation are the leaders of the movement. Of course, when you have a power structure, consisting of white males, they need to be called upon to use those powers. But it usually only applied along with the pressure of the oppressed and their allies.

If the ground work had not been laid and pressure applied by leaders and participants of any movement, legislative change that occurred would have been much slower or possibly never enacted.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. The low-hanging fruit for equality has already been picked.

With the expansion of combat roles to women, women are no more or less in favor than men are.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/29/broad-support-for-combat-roles-for-women/?src=rss_survey-reports

Women don't need the partnership of the oppressing majority, because they are an oppressing majority in name only.

We've now reached the point where the only remaining inequalities are inequality of responsibility. Next up, draft registration.

[boston bean]

79. So, in your mind there is no need for feminism to exist.

Do you feel the same way about mens rights?

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. No, I think there are purposes for both forms of advocacy.

And I wouldn't support women in the leadership of a hypothetical men's advocacy group for the same reason; an effective men's advocacy organization wouldn't spend its energy promoting her interests.

[smirkymonkey]

134. Nobody is saying "who gives a lshit what men think". We do care.

We just do not want to be marginalized in our OWN movement. Men can support, advocate, lobby. But for them to lead is just ridiculous. I would never presume that I was qualified to actually LEAD a movement that I was not a member of. If I had no understanding of their true experience, I simply could not lead as effectively as a member of the group that was oppressed.

I can get that. Why can't you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

139. Personally, I agree. Men shouldn't lead the feminism movement.

But perhaps you should be saying "why do we give a shit what men think?"

You don't really need men to carry your water. You are 54% of voters, and control 3/4 of America's wealth. Feminism is about advocacy for women, you'll be able to get more for you if you drop the "equality" facade.

Men should be supporters of choice, legal equality and elimination of harmful stereotypes.

Beyond that... in my experience, men who call themselves feminists are generally engaging in 21st century chivalry.

I think a men's advocacy movement is every bit as justified, and should be equally powerful, well-funded and respected as the feminist movement... and women shouldn't lead it.

[thucythucy]

88. BB: I'm not sure this is a good example.

See my post 85 below.

All else being equal, I personally, as someone involved in the disability rights movement, would prefer to see peer advocacy, by people with disabilities themselves, as opposed to able-bodied people doing it in their stead. I recognize this might not always be possible, but the limits of what is "possible" in disability politics have been hugely expanded in the past 50 or so years. Instead of a group like "The Association for Retarded Citizens" leading the charge, we have People First and Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered. Instead of social workers, psychiatrists, and able-bodied family members, we have MindFreedom, the National Empowerment Center, and (back in Boston during the seventies) the Mental Patients' Liberation Front. There is now a growing Autism advocacy movement, joining groups such as the National Association of the Deaf (founded in 1880!) and the National Federation of the Blind (1940) and ADAPT and such. Notice, it's the "National Association OF the Deaf" not "for the Deaf."

So "even" among people with the most profound disabilities, the impetus is for oppressed people to lead themselves out of oppression, not to have others outside our community and our experience do it for us.

Anyway, I really like your posts here. Excellent stuff.

Best wishes.

[boston bean]

89. I agree.

I just read your post upthread and responded there. Please take a moment to read it.

You are correct.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. The Arc has not been an acronym for at least 20 years.

In my state, The Arc obtained a grant to provide technical support for People First.

Self advocates are leading the charge... by utilizing and being in leadership positions of organizations like The Arc.

[thucythucy]

96. I know. It used to be

the Association for Retarded Children, then the Association for Retarded Citizens (since children do after all grow up) but then the use of "retarded" became an issue in and of itself--actually it was something of an issue from the get-go.

I always thought though that they finessed it rather well--having an organizational memory and culture that went back into the 1950s, wanting to retain their "trademark" as it were, BUT addressing the objections of self advocates to the R word. It's sort of like how ADAPT went from American Disabled for Accessible Public Transit to American Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (I think? It's getting late, my brain is disengaging!)--in this case keeping the acronym as an acronym but shifting the meaning.

I have to get to bed, but it's good comparing notes. I'll check the thread sometime tomorrow to see what develops.

Talk to you then,

Thucy

[thucythucy]

85. "Nothing about us, without us" is one of the slogans

of the disability rights movement. It comes out of the experience of many people with disabilities of having non-disabled people making decisions for us, deciding what we want and where and how and even IF we should live, all under the assumption that people with disabilities can't possibly do these things for ourselves. In fact, the charity model of disability has been a huge obstacle to disability rights.

I'm not saying there isn't a role for non-disabled people in the movement, or that non-disabled people can't ever be advocates, although all else being equal I generally prefer to see peer advocacy, as opposed to advocates coming from "a position of power" relative to those for whom they advocate. And I'm certainly not suggesting that your motives or actions are in any way suspect or a problem: that would be entirely presumptuous on my part. But one has always to bear in mind that "leadership" and "advocacy" by non-disabled people on behalf of people with disabilities has often turned into, or come out of, condescension and ableism, and thus to be always on guard against them.

People who, a half century ago, were seen as entirely unable to manage or advocate for themselves have organized to become politically active--groups like People First, MindFreedom, and the Autism Rights Movement come to mind. This would never have happened if non-disabled people had been allowed to continue leading them, if people with disabilities hadn't developed for themselves their own organizations and leadership.

Anyway, I'm glad you recognize that, compared to people with disabilities, you are in a "position of power" and "privilege." Recognizing this, I'm optimistic you also recognize that there is often a fine line between "advocating" for someone, and oppressing them by keeping them from advocating for themselves.

Best wishes.

[boston bean]

87. Thank you for this Thucy.

I am now ashamed of my responses to LLJ on this topic.

You are absolutely correct! Your post has really given me food for thought and an new perspective on what I should have said instead of what I did say.

I fell into a defense of something without thinking through the ramifications of what my posts were really saying. My apologies, you are 100 percent correct.

[thucythucy]

91. Hi! We crossed posts!

It's 'cause I take so long with each post.

Apology accepted, and no need to be ashamed. The important thing is to always keep learning.

Best wishes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. The board of directors to whom I report is made up partly of people with developmental disabilities.

Two of whom are also boardmembers of the local People First chapter.

It is important to the movement that those directly involved have a voice. It is also necessary, due to the nature of the disability of the people for whom we advocate, that neurotypical people are involved partners. People First calls these people "advisers", my organization calls them "fellow boardmembers".

I don't disagree with what you say. Truthfully, it can sometimes be a bit of a dilemma. How can I demand autonomy and self determination... for someone else?

But this is a separate, albeit worthwhile discussion.

[thucythucy]

93. This is indeed a complex issue

and one that I have also faced over the years. Just because I have a disability doesn't mean I can speak on behalf of someone from a different disability community. For instance, I would never presume to speak with any semblance of authority on Deaf issues or on behalf of the Deaf movement. So there's a lot of nuance here to explore.

And I'm glad to see you have an understanding of the dilemma, which is the first and perhaps most important step. I figured, from the language in your post ("neurotypical" I think it was) that you had an awareness of all this, but wanted in any case to make my point.

I know some of the People First activists, and it's good to know they're on board (and on the board) with what you're doing.

Good luck with your work.

[RobinA]

123. Why Can't You

demand autonomy and self-determination for someone else? People hire advocates all the time. They are called lawyers. One hires a lawyer because they are educated to do certain things more effectively than the person who hired them. NOT because they know what it is like to be in that person's shoes. I work in mental health. I am not disabled. Not a day goes by that I don't advocate for at least one of my clients. I will not stop doing so just because I am "privileged" by not being disabled, I will do so because I am "privileged" to be able to do so. Peer advocates often consider anyone not a peer to be the enemy. Which is a shame, because together we could be much stronger advocates than either one of us is alone. That's why I vote it's OK to have a male leader in the feminist movement. Whatever works. I'm not so blinded that I don't think a male might have some skills I (a female) do not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

125. If I'm carrying the flag, I try do be damn sure that I'm marching in the direction people want me to

The poster who pointed out that advocacy for the people with disabilities has been historically run by neurotypical people with good intentions (mostly moms) is absolutely right. It is a healthy change for the cause that organizations like People First are there to provide a sanity check.

[Unrepentant Fenian]

35. Why the hell not ???

I know we shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about womans issues, but some of us do care about fighting sexism. To think other wise is nothing but sexist thinking. Please don't insult me like that!!!

[gollygee]

41. It is sexist to think men shouldn't be in charge of the women's movement

And not only that, but insulting. LOL

[el_bryanto]

105. By preference - i'm not sure i understand - are you arguing that men should

be in charge of woman's movements? Why? What benefit does putting men in charge have?

I can see some clear negatives; particularly when you are starting from a societal position that woman are less than men to start with.

Bryant

[gollygee]

106. I'm being sarcastic

I do not think men should be in a position of power in the feminist movement, but I think it's ridiculous that he thinks it's sexist for women to want to control our own movement.

[el_bryanto]

112. ah ok - sorry for misunderstanding. n/t

[Unrepentant Fenian]

43. I was going to post a link to a PAC to encourage Sec. Clinton to run for President ... but...

I guess I should just mind my own business. Talk about sexism! Here it is anyway, (Men, please don't look).
https://www.facebook.com/ReadyForHillary

[seabeyond]

46. so, if you, a man, do not get your way, you throw a hissy and women under the bus. and you want

what from us?

[Unrepentant Fenian]

47. Look again before you throw YOUR hissy fit. I DID post the link...

[seabeyond]

51. oh, like you were not throwing out that old bone. geeesh, and now, what? no? whatevah. nt

[Unrepentant Fenian]

70. I'm sorry I had trouble understanding what you were trying to say, would you please re-phrase it ?

[Bonobo]

92. "throw a hissy" and other great phrases from Seabeyond...

"Ball busting bitch"

"Coddling male egos"

and now, the classic "throw a hissy".

Are there any other gender stereotyping phrases you have forgotten or are you just keep your powder dry?

[Nye Bevan]

56. No.

Because then they may not have time to take the garbage out and kill spiders in the bathtub.

[LuvLoogie]

86. Or pump gas and shovel the driveway

Can you imagine a guy as the head of NOW? He would get so razzed. Unless he was hyper alpha causing the voting members to swoon and imagine their children with his last name.

[Bonobo]

57. A man working for the issue should not be paid equally?

If there is a man who devotes his time to working for equal rights for women, should he not be paid equally?

Of course he should.

And if he does, would he not rightly and deservedly be called a leader and have the responsibility to tell people under him what to do -be they men or women?

I think if you care more about the outcome than the side issues you are describing, you should let the go of some of the poison.

[Kurska]

58. As a gay man, I would be disgusted with the gay rights movement if it banned hetrosexual leaders.

To me that would be a supreme example of, MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. The point being to treat all peoples as equal and judge them as individuals. Telling someone they can't hold a position based on the colour of their skin, what is between their legs or who they love has no place in any sort of equality movement.

So I think you can infer my position on whether or not men can be leaders in a feminist movement.

To address the issue that some have raised about non-minorites not being able to fully understand the plight of minorities, I say this. If you don't think an ally can fully understand your issues, then YOU my friend haven't done a good enough job of explaining them.

[MuseRider]

61. As a straight woman who has worked for years with your groups

I have to step in for a moment. I applaud your desire to include others however as one of those others I think it is very necessary to understand that the leaders chosen who are not part of the people the movement is about have spent years and years (depending on their intelligence and willingness) learning how to speak without their privilege showing. I maintain that we should remain allies, it is an important place to be, and let you all run the show and our position is to either speak out as allies to non LGBT people or do whatever it is you need us to do.

JMHO it does matter, greatly spoken as a devoted ally

[Kurska]

66. A civil rights movement should never tell someone they can't do something because of who they are.

I want effective leaders who will get things done. 10 times out of 10 If it was a choice between a less competent and effective LGBTQ or a more effective heterosexual ally to lead a gay rights group, I'd take the more effective heterosexual ally. Of course the inverse is also true and I'd prefer a effective homosexual to an ineffective heterosexual.

The key point here is that merit should determine leaders and nothing else. That is how I want to see all of society and that is how I'd want to see my civil rights movements.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. Then maybe it's not a civil rights movement. n/t

[yardwork]

62. I'd kick my sons' asses if they weren't leaders in feminism.

One of my sons is the co-founder of a feminist group on his campus. He says he knows to be quiet during meetings most of the time, though. He knows that the women need to be the main spokespeople.

It's essential that men feel empowered to be part of the feminist movement.

[kdmorris]

119. You said it with less words than I did LOL

After my sons are born and while growing up... I will be incredibly disappointed in them if they were not as invested as I and their father are in equality for women.

[MotherPetrie]

63. Kind of defeats the purpose. The whole purpose of feminism is making women at LEAST

equal with men. To have men be LEADERS in it puts women right back where they started, in secondary positions.

[boston bean]

74. Well, there is always that little hump to get over, but many seem to be able

to jump it with no problem.

It's anti feminist on it's face. Not sure what else to say....

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. Not No; but ...

HELL NO!

While males might be sympathetic to the feminist cause, there is no way that we can understand the dynamics and sensibilities of women that must inform what should/should not be done.

Further, males are/would be unable to sufficiently remove ourselves from our own interests to truly look out for the interests of the feminist movement.

[smirkymonkey]

133. Thank YOU! For getting it.

You are a very wise person.

[1StrongBlackMan]

141. Not to side-track the discussion; but ...

I have direct experience with this question (only a little different).

Back in the late '80s, early '90s, I worked in the Civil Rights field. This put me in contact with a number of other organizations addressing Civil Rights (specifically, housing and integration) issues. The coalition that grew up around these issues was pretty much racially balanced.

However, I got into alot of trouble when after listening to a white guy Director of a "Racial Conciliation" agency preach for hours and hours on what Black people need to do. Finally, I suggested (as politely as my anger would allow) that maybe he should focus on what white people can do to address discrimination; rather than, instruct Black people on how to be worthy (in white eyes) to rent or purchase, wherever their money could take them.

I was escorted out of the meeting and not invited back.

[smirkymonkey]

142. Thank you so much for your

valuable input. I very much admire your activism and your thoughtfulness.

[The Straight Story]

65. If the goal is equality then yes, or are some people more equal in certain cases?

If a man can effectively lead in a movement should he not be allowed to because his physical makeup is different?

I thought the idea all along was that men and women are exactly equal and not to judge/treat others in a different way based on their gender.

If things are based solely off 'experiences' then perhaps some on the right were correct in thinking before that others just don't get America and our culture so they voted for the white instead of the latino.

[gollygee]

107. It is a women's movement

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2013, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

No one is saying that "some people are more equal than others." I'm tired of the strawmen being thrown out over this issue. We are only saying that women should control their own movement. That's it.

[Coyotl]

67. My answer: Some of us were, long ago.

[tama]

69. Pass

I don't believe there should be any leaders in the feminist movement, or that feminist movement should be hierarchic power structure with leaders. But no doubt there are many kinds of feminists, including those that believe that they should be the leaders of the feminist movement. And of course, the more leaders you have, the more movements you have, and more rivalry for followers and bad blood between competing authoritarian movements. But so it goes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism

I don't know care if Kropotkin qualifies as feminist in some eyes, but as anarcha-feminist he advised that in anarchic communities also men should participate in house work, because if they don't, the community has little chance of surviving and thriving. Just practical advice based on practical experience, not bossing around.

[ZombieHorde]

77. I think this depends on how we define "leader" for the purpose of this poll.

Do you people in charge of organized groups?

[seabeyond]

83. crazyjoe. women cannot think rationally and make logical decisions and you trust us with BABIES

alone, all day long and more?

who is the one that is not rational and who does not make logical decisions?????

lmfao.

edit... crazyjoe just made a really stupidly sexist post that i was addressing, but could not reply to the actual post cause it was hidden for being stupidly sexist.

[CreekDog]

97. yes, with a big caveat...

in any movement, there may be lots of leaders, and men certainly have a role to play in helping advance equality for women, BUT, the idea that the movement might be run by men, or be dominated by men in a way that often happens in the larger society needs to be completely avoided.

[Throd]

98. How about could instead of should? As a dad to 2 young girls, I feel very vested in women's rights.

I want my daughters to live in a society where they can strive to be their best, free from fear or discrimination.

I can only speak for myself, but I can advocate for others.

[Zorra]

99. Sure, as long as it's a feminist organization with no women in it.

I'm totally goddam sick and tired of men trying to control me and tell me what to do, they've been trying to do this all my life. Just in the last week I've had two seriously hostile aggro men lay ignorant nasty condescending patriarchal "divine right of the mortal man god" control trips on me, one in my business life and the other in my business/personal life, and ya know what?

(Expletives unfit for human eyes and ears deleted)

Feminism should definitely be a province where women are in complete control of our own trip. Can men be feminists? Sure. Am I going to let a man lead me in my feminist organization?

Not until sometime long after hell freezes over.

Bottom line: No man who is really a feminist would ever even consider trying to lead women in the feminist movement out of a simple understanding of the reasons why feminism is even still necessary after well over a century of intense feminist struggle.

Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement

WASHINGTON—After decades spent battling gender discrimination and inequality in the workplace, the feminist movement underwent a high-level shake-up last month, when 53-year-old management consultant Peter "Buck" McGowan took over as new chief of the worldwide initiative for women's rights.

McGowan, who now oversees the group's day-to-day operations, said he "couldn't be happier" to bring his ambition, experience, and no-nonsense attitude to his new role as the nation's top feminist.

"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."
snip---
"With a charismatic, self-assured guy like Pete pulling the strings, we might even see a female elected president one of these days," said Nathan Roth, an analyst at the Cato Institute. "Finally, the feminist movement has a face that commands respect."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-m,2338/

[redqueen]

117. "understanding of the reasons why feminism is even still necessary after well over a century of

intense feminist struggle"



This says so much.

And it is not just still necessary, but more necessary than ever. We are losing ground here, as evidenced so clearly in the run up to the last election, in the online free-for-all on women, the flourishing human trafficking industry, etc.

[randome]

118. If I say I approve of your post, will you hold that against me?

[kdmorris]

100. Most leaders rise to the position by consent of the people they are leading

During the Civil Rights movement, it was very unlikely that a Caucasian would rise to the same position as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, etc. Without the support, help and hard work of other races than African American, I think it would have taken longer to get to passing the Civil Rights movement.

I believe the same holds true of feminism. I think that a man certainly could lead, but it's unlikely that one would rise to that level within a feminist organization. But excluding a man outright on the basis of him having a penis is wrong. But we certainly want the support and help of feminist men out there.

I'm disheartened by this thread. The original question and the subsequent responses seem to just set it up as another opportunity to bash men. I've long been upset by this male bashing ("I'm sick of men telling me what to do" makes it sound like that's all men) because my husband is a feminist - we raised 3 daughters together and he actually taught me a lot of what I know about feminism (I was raised in the Southern Baptist church... they don't exactly go out of their way to teach young girls about equality).

Now I found out that both of the babies I'm carrying are boys and I'm going to have two sons in June/July... and this has gotten me to thinking even harder about this. All men are not the enemy and I refuse to believe that my husband and I can't raise two men who are just as passionate about equality as we are, who are just as supportive and work just as hard to get women there as our three daughters. If they were to become involved in feminist organizations and the organization felt that they could and should lead - I would be honored. (though I think that scenario is still highly unlikely due to the nature of most of these struggles).

[Arcanetrance]

101. Do I lead as a male yes should I lead the movement no

As a male we should lead by example and support out sisters and mothers. But also as a male I know I will never have the same life experiences as my little sister. That much wad obvious when we were younger at 13 I was allowed out to concerts my sister wasn't. When she asked why my mom laid it out to her in a way I wasn't ready to hear she basically told her cause I'm a male. Even that young one can see her and I will never have the same life experiences. So therefore say again I can lead as a male and stand beside woman but to think I could lead and tell them what they need is foolish.

[seabeyond]

104. wow. really? your mom said and did that? shameful. i will say, having two older brothers

all of us a year apart, so not much spread in age, wow.... my parents NEVER did that in our house or treat us by gender. for real. and this was decades ago.

[Arcanetrance]

108. Yeah my mom learned that from her parents

My grandparents were the example of sexism and it's carried on in my mom aunt and uncle

[seabeyond]

111. truly amazing to me and i know even today it is very much out there, but, i did not grow up

with this. the subtle conditioning of culture. yes. but, my mom was a firey 5'3" that didnt put up with shit. very strong. very vocal. and wasnt gonna take shit. IF anything arose and i identified it as a sexist approach, i could easily argue and win. they never did it consciously, but we were all conditioned also.

interesting. thanks.

[Arcanetrance]

114. My mother has gotten better in recent years standing up for herself more

But people like my grandmother don't seem to get over it. My grandfather dies 6 years ago and since than my uncle basically took on his roll. Here my grandmother is in her 80s and she has to ask my uncle to spend her own money. So that's why I stand up for women's rights because I don't want to see that continue with anyone

[seabeyond]

115. omg, that is horrible, lol. so sad. but,

at 80, she would not know any better.

good for you. i do not think it behooves either gender.

[bemildred]

102. Seems like an oxymoron to me. nt

[Little Star]

103. No. But they are needed, wanted and appreciated as allies in our struggle. The fact remains..

it is our struggle and our movement for women to lead.

[obamanut2012]

110. No, the leaders should always be women

Men are terrific allies and advocates, and we are so blessed to have them be part of "the movement."

I am white, and would never think I should be a leader of an African-American rights group. I should be, and am, a terrific ally and advocate.

LGBT rights groups' leadership should be LGBT (except for PFLAG, for obvious reasons).

etc etc etc

[redqueen]

121. Yes, good point. Men do lead organizations such as NOMAS

http://www.nomas.org/

I wonder how many men here are familiar with the organization.

[obamanut2012]

124. Right, I think PFLAG and NOMAS are the vanguard

As advocate organizations.

[redqueen]

113. IMNSHO any poll like this should be restricted to women only. nt

[randome]

116. Generally "No" to being leaders. Fervent supporters, yes.

[Starry Messenger]

120. Men can be wonderful allies.

But part of feminism is giving more space for women to take leadership roles. The hearings that iced out Sandra Fluke are an example of what can happen when discussions of women's issues are not led by women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. Most men who claim to be feminists are really performing 21st century chivalry.

Which is actually kind of ironic.

[MynameisBlarney]

126. Gonna go with my gut on this one.

And say no, at least not officially. Because, I think it could be insulting for women to have to have a man take the lead on womens rights. Kinda goes against the whole deal I'd say.

But I know that I often get into arguments with friends and family when I hear them say some stupid sexist shit.
My brother is the worst.
He's 34 and has a 1950's mentality towards women...and everyone else.
Don't know where he got it from either...our dad ain't like that. Sure as hell didn't get it from me.

[4Q2u2]

127. No

I think men can definitely help, but do we have the full and total insight to define who woman are what they want? It seems that a lot of the deep seeded problems woman face today never are fully exposed to men. I myself will fully admit that I do not know and can not comprehend the full gamut of social injustice woman face. In knowing that, I would not be comfortable trying to lead something that I was not fully aware of what needed to be done in all instances at all times. I am also kind of adverse to trying to define other people and their needs.


For those of you who say yes, the who should lead this movement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125515226

It seems we men have a lot on our plate just to fix us.

[smirkymonkey]

136. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

It gives me hope that there are men out there like you.

[4Q2u2]

143. You are welcome

Thank you also for the kind words. I am still a work in progress but who is not.

As Nipsy Russell used to say, if progress is to move forward what is Congress?

[uriel1972]

128. Hmmm

If feminist women want to have a man as one of their formal leaders then who am I to argue.
Also walking the walk is leadership by example, there the leadership is informal and doesn't have to be recognized by anyone it just is.

[MellowDem]

135. Yes...

When it comes to equality, whether among gender, race, or sexual orientation etc. etc., we need leaders from every background. If leadership is only relegated to those who are being discriminated against, then the bigger point is being missed by that group and their advocacy will not be as effective.

Every movement NEEDS leaders from all backgrounds to be the most effective and persuasive in educating the public, which, guess what, is made up of people of all backgrounds.

If men can only be advocates and allies in a movement that is about gender equality, then it really is saying the movement isn't about gender equality, it is about women, and that is mere identity politics, advocating for one specific group at the expense of another.

[smirkymonkey]

138. Ummmmmmmmmmmm....

In case it flew over your head, feminism IS about women. Just saying.

AND it is not about advocating about one group over another. It is about parity. It is about equality. There is no zero sum game. There is no such thing as advocating for one group at the "expense of the other". It is simply about human rights for half the people in this world. Grow the F**K up.

[MellowDem]

144. Gees smirky...

If it's simply about human rights for only half of the world, then it's not about parity or equality as a whole, it's about parity and equality only for women.

You can't have your cake and eat it too in other words.

If you concern yourself with advocating for only one group, then it's impossible in many instances NOT to advocate for your group at the expense of others. If you ARE looking out for others, then you really aren't advocating for just one group.

[seabeyond]

145. your stance is... the womans movement should NOT be about women. black movement NOT

about blacks. and the gay movement NOT about gays?

and you are on du? lol

ok

[MellowDem]

146. No, that's not my stance...

My stance is that movements for racial equality are not just about blacks, movements for gender equality are not just about women, etc. etc.

If your advocacy group is just about blacks, then you may indeed align your group with a wider social movement that is for racial equality, just like if your advocacy group is just about whites, you may back in the day unfortunately align your group against that social movement for racial equality.

In other words, social movements are seperate from advocacy groups based on identity, and while they often overlap, they are not the same.

The women's movement is about women, the black movement is about blacks, etc. etc., they aren't about specific ideas or ideologies like social movements. So yes, these groups will only have members and leaders that, for the most part, fit their group identity. But for a larger idea, like racial equality, that requires a movement, racial equality doesn't apply to just blacks, or gender equality to just women. It applies to everyone. The movement is based on an idea, not advocacy for only one group.

There's a reason the women's movement and the black movement, as just one example, clashed at times (as all identity politics groups can and do). It's because their advocacy for their own group came at the expense of another group at times, because the well-being of their group was the primary goal, not a broader idea.

There definitely is tension created when one advocacy group becomes part of a larger social movement and then works against other advocacy groups who are also in that social movement on other issues.

[smirkymonkey]

147. What are you talking about?

It is not advocating for one group at the expense of the other. It is simply advocating for one group. There is no expense at the other. How narrow minded are you? It is not a zero sum game.

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. Your last sentence is accurate.

So let's "be grownups" start from that basis and work backwards.

What is the feminist viewpoint on the violence against women act? Women suffer less violence than men, yet they don't support a "violence against men act"... because it's not about equality - it's about advocacy.

Many self-described feminists here are unhappy that women soldiers will now be used in combat roles because equality of responsibility isn't what they had in mind.

[Bucky]

137. Well, someone needs to straighten them chicks out.

Phil Donahue. There, the discussion's over.