Women in politics (split off from the feminism discussion thread)

[Kythia]

Men are and have been responsible for almost every problem a women can and does face.  You also find men are far and beyond the largest contributors to racism and other forms of discrimination.  Men cause most of the wars, most of the crime and are the biggest contributors to problems such as the banking crisis.

You can't have this both ways, Brittany.  You can't say "it's awful men are in charge and would be better if they didn't because they cause most of the wars".

Without stats or, frankly, the interest in finding them I'm perfectly happy to agree that most wars have been between countries led by males.  But thats simply because most countries are led by males. 

It's simply not a valid criticism of a "patriarchal" society to say that problems with a society (leaving aside the question of whetehr all wars are a bad thing)  are caused by the patriachy and thus it in and of itself is wrong.  It's like arguing that, errrrrr, that most disciplinary problems here on E are related to members and therefore we should cast out all existing members and replace them/us with a new set.  Sure, most problems are caused by members but thats simply an artifact of the case that only members CAN cause these problems.

Argue in favour of replacing all leaders with females if you like, I disagree but whatever.  But you can't justify it by saying that women qua women would make better leaders solely because of a lot of existing problems have been caused by male leaders.  Thatcher went to war in the Falklands (or the Malvinas for any Argentinian readers, not trying to start a different argument), Indira Gandhi bordered on dictator and thats just two off the top of my head. 

[Brittany]

You can't have this both ways, Brittany.  You can't say "it's awful men are in charge and would be better if they didn't because they cause most of the wars".

Without stats or, frankly, the interest in finding them I'm perfectly happy to agree that most wars have been between countries led by males.  But thats simply because most countries are led by males. 

It's simply not a valid criticism of a "patriarchal" society to say that problems with a society (leaving aside the question of whetehr all wars are a bad thing)  are caused by the patriachy and thus it in and of itself is wrong.  It's like arguing that, errrrrr, that most disciplinary problems here on E are related to members and therefore we should cast out all existing members and replace them/us with a new set.  Sure, most problems are caused by members but thats simply an artifact of the case that only members CAN cause these problems.

Argue in favour of replacing all leaders with females if you like, I disagree but whatever.  But you can't justify it by saying that women qua women would make better leaders solely because of a lot of existing problems have been caused by male leaders.  Thatcher went to war in the Falklands (or the Malvinas for any Argentinian readers, not trying to start a different argument), Indira Gandhi bordered on dictator and thats just two off the top of my head.

Completely agree.  But it is one of those things we will not know until we try. 

The big question though, is why shouldn't every country have a female leader with 1 or 2 countries having a male leader?  This is the way it is at the moment (and always has been), but the roles are reversed.  In 2013, there should not be a reason why a female candidate, and a black candidate runs for every office all over the world. 

This does not happen.  I have never had the chance to elect a female Prime Minister (asides from the Green party) or a black prime minister.  I see a big fundamental flaw with this.  They should not get in because they are a woman, but women should be encouraged to run and be allowed to run.  When a British female politician tries to run as leader of a political party, the party nixes it before we get to have a public vote.

Feminism is about equality, and the world is not equal, nowhere near.  Most top jobs taken by men.  Yes, banks ran by women may have caused the recession, but they didn't because our banks are ran by men. 

To me, at basic human rights level, feminism has done it's job.  But you are still unfairly limited as to how far you can go in life and your career in comparison to a man, at least in the UK.

[Rhapsody]

This does not happen.  I have never had the chance to elect a female Prime Minister.  I see a big fundamental flaw with this.  They should not get in because they are a woman, but women should be encouraged to run and be allowed to run.  When a British female politician tries to run as leader of a political party, the party nixes it before we get to have a public vote.

Perhaps you haven't had a chance to elect a female PM yourself, but there was in fact one very famous one who ran the UK for 11 years. You might have heard of her: Margaret Thatcher.

[Brittany]

Perhaps you haven't had a chance to elect a female PM yourself, but there was in fact one very famous one who ran the UK for 11 years. You might have heard of her: Margaret Thatcher.

Outside of my lifetime.  But this is one lady. 

Out of 74 leaders of the country, 73 have been male and only two females have even been up for election, one with a party with no chance.  Equality?

Also many people describe her as the greatest of all of them.  Many hated her, but she had a lot of followers.  So females can evidently do the job.  Why no female candidate in the next 23 years?

[Trieste]

Plus the US equivalent of a PM - a woman first ran in 1872, and one cannot discount the powerhouse that Clinton was in 2008 (and, if the rumors are true, will again be in 2016).

[Kythia]

Outside of my lifetime.  But this is one lady. 

Out of 74 leaders of the country, 73 have been male and only two females have even been up for election, one with a party with no chance.  Equality?

Also many people describe her as the greatest of all of them.  Many hated her, but she had a lot of followers.  So females can evidently do the job.  Why no female candidate in the next 23 years?

Prime Ministers aren't elected over here.  Parties are elected, they then elect a leader within themselves.   Check out the situation where Tony Blair stepped down and Gordon Brown took over.  There was no public vote needed.

[Rhapsody]

Outside of my lifetime.  But this is one lady. 

Out of 74 leaders of the country, 73 have been male and only two females have even been up for election, one with a party with no chance.  Equality?

Prior to 100 years ago, there were no women in British politics at all, which skews your data. There have been 23 Prime Ministers to date since 1910, and in the last century, that single woman who has been the country's leader held the position for 11% of that time frame, far longer than the majority of her male counterparts. Further, 25% of the House of Commons and 20% of the House of Lords are women. Is it equivalent equality? Not quite yet. But it's not as far off as you might think.

[Brittany]

Prime Ministers aren't elected over here.  Parties are elected, they then elect a leader within themselves.   Check out the situation where Tony Blair stepped down and Gordon Brown took over.  There was no public vote needed.

I understand that.  However parties have not been electing women for these top jobs.  And the parties do not have anywhere close to 50-50 representation. 

The labour party consists of 30% female MPs and they have more female MPs than all of the other parties combined.  Yet 48% of Labours local councillors are female.

This tells us that the female local councillors are not getting anywhere near as many promotions as the male.  This, as you say is decided by the political parties of the UK, and they of all businesses should be aiming for a 50-50 split.  The female politicians are out there, but they are not being given the good jobs, which seem to go mostly to older men who insult police officers or leave important files in the pub.

It's jobs for the boys, it always has been, and that is reflected all the way through British business.

Equality = 50/50.  We shouldn't settle for 30% and say at least it's an improvement and we had one or two leaders.  Labour actively boast about having 30% female representation where as they should be ashamed it isn't higher.  When Obama was elected, people were delighted that the barrier was finally broken for the civil movement.  If there is not another black president for 100 years, there has been no change, and no barrier broken.

[Kythia]

This tells us that the female local councillors are not getting anywhere near as many promotions as the male.  T

Local Government to National isn't a promotion.  It's a different job.

This, as you say is decided by the political parties of the UK, and they of all businesses should be aiming for a 50-50 split.  The female politicians are out there, but they are not being given the good jobs, which seem to go mostly to older men who insult police officers or leave important files in the pub.

This is the same form of argument as you were making before.  Most MPs are male, hence most mistakes by MPs will be made by male MPs.  It's statistics, not sex.  And besides, one of our MPs claimed for her husbands porn movies on expenses.  No sex is blameless here and, anecdotally, I cant think of any evidence to suggest female MPs are underrepresented in the horrific errors stakes.  Look at Harriet Harman's frequent and quite blatent making up of statistics.

[Brittany]

Local Government to National isn't a promotion.  It's a different job.

This is the same form of argument as you were making before.  Most MPs are male, hence most mistakes by MPs will be made by male MPs.  It's statistics, not sex.  And besides, one of our MPs claimed for her husbands porn movies on expenses.  No sex is blameless here and, anecdotally, I cant think of any evidence to suggest female MPs are underrepresented in the horrific errors stakes.  Look at Harriet Harman's frequent and quite blatent making up of statistics.

Again you may be correct, but my initial point still stands.  They are delighted and proud to have 30% female representation, while the aim of feminism is for equality.  Equality is 50%.  For a British political party committed to equal rights, they should be actively looking to boost the number of females in important roles, yet instead they appear content with 30%.

I am not saying take skilled men and replace them with unskilled women.  But the women are out there, working in local government and studying politics degrees.  They should have equal chance to join the party as a male, and in that party they should have equal chance to rise right to the top.

While the party votes for the person it puts forward as Prime Minister, and not the people, a female is always selected for the final five (Diane Abbott was selected at the labour election) and always the party votes the female candidate out first or second.  I cannot concede there are not some sexist MPs that won't vote for a woman.  There are also sexist members of the constituency who would not vote for a woman.

There is sexism in politics, because it is a male dominated environment.  But it's not just politics, it's the whole of UK business.   Football, what those two announcers spoke about the female linesman, sexism.   Go to a factory and see naked pictures of women all over the shop floor, sexism.  Any industry that is male dominated has a sexist undercurrent.  I work in the hotel industry, a largely female industry, and there is no sexism that I have seen in the last two years towards a male.  I cannot accept that men are not able to give women equal opportunities, equal pay and treat them decently, and I do not believe that a male in a female environment is subject to anywhere near as many problems. 

[Kythia]

Again you may be correct, but my initial point still stands.  They are delighted and proud to have 30% female representation, while the aim of feminism is for equality.  Equality is 50%.  For a British political party committed to equal rights, they should be actively looking to boost the number of females in important roles, yet instead they appear content with 30%.

I'm not precisely certain who "they" refers to here.  But all three major political parties have expressed that commitment.  Labout have used all women shortlists and the Lib Dems and Conservatives have said they will start in the 2015 General Election.

I am not saying take skilled men and replace them with unskilled women.  But the women are out there, working in local government and studying politics degrees.  They should have equal chance to join the party as a male, and in that party they should have equal chance to rise right to the top.

No argument here

While the party votes for the person it puts forward as Prime Minister, and not the people, a female is always selected for the final five (Diane Abbott was selected at the labour election) and always the party votes the female candidate out first or second.  I cannot concede there are not some sexist MPs that won't vote for a woman.  There are also sexist members of the constituency who would not vote for a woman.

This isn't the case.  Noone is "selected", candidates put their own name forwards. 

In general, I think I disgaree with some of your positions.  But it matters not.  I'm going to bed now, but I've enjoyed talking to you.

[Brittany]

I'm not precisely certain who "they" refers to here.  But all three major political parties have expressed that commitment.  Labout have used all women shortlists and the Lib Dems and Conservatives have said they will start in the 2015 General Election.

No argument here

This isn't the case.  Noone is "selected", candidates put their own name forwards. 

In general, I think I disgaree with some of your positions.  But it matters not.  I'm going to bed now, but I've enjoyed talking to you.

Likewise, good night :)

[Caehlim]

I would never claim to understand why our male leaders start so many wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_the_great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisia_I_of_Caria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_arc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahhotep_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_aquitaine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouddica
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golda_Meir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castille

Edit: In hindsight I should probably provide some context to these links.

I believe that women are capable of everything that men are capable of. This includes starting or participating in wars. As you can see, there have been many historical women who have been involved in this process. This list barely scrapes the surface, but it's a starting point. Read some history and you'll see just how exclusionary your quote above appears to anyone with an interest in history.

For the record, some of the most useful resources I found to assemble this list was from feminist sources documenting powerful female figures in the past.

[Silverfyre]

But...but... men... blame...everything...

~faints from disbelief that one gender isn't the "be all, end all" in fixing the world~

So yeah, women are not the key to changing the world for the better.  Neither are men or any gender/sexuality/national/ethnic/what-have-you factor.  What is are good, educated and compassionate people.  Regardless of gender, those leaders, politicians and officials that strike out for the people and with virtuous goals in mind will be the key to changing the world and creating a place of equality.  Implementing an "affirmative action" type of plan that makes all governing bodies have 50/50 representation along gender lines (mind you, this ignores the population that does not identify as purely male or female) is not only unrealistic but unproductive.  Gender does not equal good or bad intentions and blaming one gender for all the evils and terrible things in the world, past and present, is shortsighted and plainly sexist.  We need people who work towards progress and equality, not some bizarre gender status-quo that exists simply because of what genitals they might have.

[Brittany]

I've never actually said the world would be a better place if it were run solely by women, nor that men are responsible for everything.  Men have been responsible for most of the current issues the world finds itself in, such as the war in Afghanistan and the banking crisis.  This may well have happened with females in all of those jobs, we have no way of knowing.

What is clear however, is that men are currently in charge of the world, and it should be an aim of equality to have a much larger percentage of female influence in important decisions than what we have now.  As I said last night, I concede there have been female leaders, and for the most part they've done a job at least equal to what the guys have.  Thatcher was one of the longest reigning PM's with a large group of people who to this day say she was the best of them all.  Yet since, no woman has been put into a position where we could elect her.

When President Obama became the first black president, the Civil rights groups were delighted, as I'm sure feminism was when Thatcher was elected.  They see it as a glass ceiling being shattered.  I am not sure how the civil rights thing will go, but no glass ceiling was shattered with Thatchers election.  They gave a woman a chance, she took it, became one of the most successful Prime Ministers ever and now we are back to waiting a huge amount of years to even have another female candidate.  It's as though it was a "heres a female in charge, shut up now" rather than true equality.

As I said last night, there are women in politics and they are not given the best jobs despite sometimes being the best candidate.  They also are not being voted for by both politicians and the general public, partly and sometimes solely on the basis that they are female.   This is fundamentally wrong. 

Implementing an "affirmative action" type of plan that makes all governing bodies have 50/50 representation along gender lines (mind you, this ignores the population that does not identify as purely male or female) is not only unrealistic but unproductive. 

I understand and agree with you in principle.  We should be picking the best person, rather than gender having any influence at all.

However if this is the case, the balance would be fair.  In this generation we may have 70% males and 30% females in top roles, given that is what the generation turned up in terms of good candidates.  However the next generation could then see 80% females and 20% males.  And the following 50-50.

What we have now, is the males are always the majority.  Parties are happy and proud to have as little as 30% female representation and see this as a huge breakthrough.

In reality the best candidate should get the job, and if this resulted in 80% of the top politicial jobs going to women, then so be it.  This will never ever happen.  Politics is seen as a male dominated environment and female politicians are not judged fairly on their flaws and pluses in the same way males are.  I don't think anyone is actually arguing that the system is fair and that gender does not play a role in how far you can go.  It may not restrict you, like in the case of Thatcher, but she had to work harder than any male prime minister just to have the same level as respect and win votes.

My view on the Matriachal society, is if you guys feel it is fair and just for a mere handful of powerful influential females to govern our world while the rest are men, why would it not be as fair and just for the males to be the minority? 

[Silverfyre]

If you agree with it, then why do you keep advocating for the opposite (i.e. your matriarchy principle) with your posts?

Equality is not a 50/50 split down gender lines; it is equal representation of issues that concern everyone and a progressive minded sort of government that does not judge or rule against people based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality or any sort of factor that is a personal and/or biological choice.  I would love to see more women or anyone that is a "minority" in politics, as long as they deliver up the sort of "equality" that would truly benefit society.  I am tired of the same rich, older white men in power that are found throughout the world; I will agree that the privileged white male politician generally is not progressive, not striving for equality or putting anyone but themselves and their party's ideology first.  I am disgusted by the current political climate in not only my own country but the world in general.  We need change but it needs to come out of something other than something like instituting a matriarchy or something that is determined by gender.

Stating that it is never going to happen either means you have already given up; I'd like to keep optimistic and work towards giving something like this a chance as saying it will "never happen" only admits defeat and shows that you have no real conviction behind your opinions.  It might take time but I'd like to think that eventually, we will get it right. 

[Brittany]

If you agree with it, then why do you keep advocating for the opposite (i.e. your matriarchy principle) with your posts?

Equality is not a 50/50 split down gender lines; it is equal representation of issues that concern everyone and a progressive minded sort of government that does not judge or rule against people based on gender, ethnicity, sexuality or any sort of factor that is a personal and/or biological choice.  I would love to see more women or anyone that is a "minority" in politics, as long as they deliver up the sort of "equality" that would truly benefit society.  I am tired of the same rich, older white men in power that are found throughout the world; I will agree that the privileged white male politician generally is not progressive, not striving for equality or putting anyone but themselves and their party's ideology first.  I am disgusted by the current political climate in not only my own country but the world in general.  We need change but it needs to come out of something other than something like instituting a matriarchy or something that is determined by gender.

Stating that it is never going to happen either means you have already given up; I'd like to keep optimistic and work towards giving something like this a chance as saying it will "never happen" only admits defeat and shows that you have no real conviction behind your opinions.  It might take time but I'd like to think that eventually, we will get it right.

My advocating of the matriachal society is as I said.  I do not see why a large amount of people feel it is OK and not unfair to have all of our major decisions made by men.  If what we are living in now is a fair and acceptable world, surely it would be just as fair and acceptable to have a society mostly run by females.   For a very very long time now women have been held down by men in life and especially at work.  Is there a part of me that feels true equality would be giving the males a taste of what they have put women through for hundreds of years?  Certainly.  I would find it hard to have sympathy if a man was neglected for a promotion because he was a man, or if a man had to work harder and better than all of the women, just to earn the same amount of respect.

But my personal feelings aside, I agree the best candidate should get the job and the pressures on the employee should be the same regardless of gender.  This is not how it currently works, not just in politics but in the majority of industries.  A female firefighter for example, has to be twice as good as her male counterparts to get the same level of respect, and often even being twice as good, still doesn't get it.

As for me having "given up".  This is a long running thing, it's been going on all my lifetime and generations and generations before that.  Women have been held down.  People, politicians like to claim equality but we are nowhere near.  The time when a young female straight out of college can join the Conservative party, get a good starting job, work her way up, and become Prime Minister in exactly the same way a male can is nowhere near.  The reality is, she can do this as Lady Thatcher did.  But it will take her longer, and she will have to fight harder than the male, having to win votes that she will lose elsewhere simply because of her sex.  That is not equality.

[Kythia]

Implementing an "affirmative action" type of plan that makes all governing bodies have 50/50 representation along gender lines (mind you, this ignores the population that does not identify as purely male or female) is not only unrealistic but unproductive. 

I actually disgaree with you slightly here, or at least in the specific case of women only shortlists for political parties.  I think the issue is two-fold.

1) There is no objective standard for what makes a better politician.  No party would want to risk an awful candidate so the women on the women only shortlist will, I am sure, be perfectly capable of being an MP.  If there was some kind of scale for MP effectiveness then sure, I agree.  But there isn't so I don't feel that concerns about effectiveness (which I realise you personally haven't mentioned but are an often brought up issue) really apply.

There is evidence to suggest (and search as I may I cannot find the reference.  I'll keep looking, let me know if you want it and I'll PM it) from a presitigous US law school - lets say Harvard for the sake of a name, though it may not be.  Black students are getting in with lower qualifications due to affirmative action policies, but they are graduating with the same representative spread of degrees and getting the same jobs.  In essence, what is suggested is there is so little difference between the top 1% and the second percentile that it makes no difference.  There's essentially a competence ceiling.

I would argue the same applies to MPs.

Is that a reason for women only shortlists?  Well, not quite.  It does mean that, IMHO, they do no harm to the effectiveness of government although it isn't a boon either.  But...

2) There are societal forces acting against female MPs.  We can call it an old boy's club, though its obviously more complex than that.  Increasing the number of females would go some way towards removing that - both by increasing the number of people in decision making positions and (to my mind more importantly) serving as aspirational role models and "symbols" that such things are possible.

I can't possibly argue that

good, educated and compassionate people

are a much better way of achieving equality.  However, I do feel that it is way simpler to implement a "quota" system than to come up with some system (I can't think of one) to ensure that only such people get elected in to office.

Your mileage may, of course, vary.

EDIT:  Forgot to say.  And of course women only shortlists do little to nothing to enable those outside the binary.  And that's where quota systems fall down, IMHO.  Women are a big enough and recognisable demograph for it to be feasible.  But when it gets to the stage where we are electing people utterly regardless of competance becase the shortlist has been stocked to make sure the House of Commons has the correct number of one armed Albanian Jewish immigrants who trained as a shoemaker then it gets ridiculous.  Not of course that I'm claiming people existing outside the binary are such a minor (in terms of numbers) group as to be unable to get a good and willing candidate to stand, but as lines are drawn increasingly finely (can a genderfluid person adequately represent MTF transexsuals?  Obviously not looking for an answer, just an example) it becomes harder and harder.  THat, to my mind, is the downside of quotas and I confess I have no answer.

[Silverfyre]

It might be simpler to initiate a quota system but it is far from a solution to solving the problems of our current political climate.  It would be wonderful to get more perspectives than the same "Old Rich Boys Club" that we have had to endure for the last ....well, forever.  I just think that there is a better means of implementing a better system than "Hey, you have a vagina!  That means you are qualified!". 

Personally, I think that gender and religion, as well as economic standing, should have no place in government.  There should be a system of government that does not favor the rich and the powerful and allows for anyone to run for office without facing financial ruin just to get on the ballet and have a reasonable chance at winning.  It is an idealistic system to say the least but I can always hope. 

In other words, I agree that we need to change politics.  We need a more diverse voice in government and in our officials.  Enough of the rich, white and male population ruining the world but let's find a system that doesn't hing on someone's gender.  That just doesn't make much sense to me.

[Kythia]

Oh I agree, I do.  But I can't think of a system of government that fulfils those criteria.  Whereas I feel women only shortlists are a positive step - a net good despite the valid criticisms you make - and, more importantly, implementable.  Something people can work towards and agitate for.  In essence I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, a little

[Silverfyre]

I think you are right.  My idealism can be blinding at times but I just wish there was the "perfect system" when I know fully well that there probably isn't.  Women and minorities need better representation and we need to get rid of the same "Old Rich, White Boys" club; on that, I think we can all agree. :)

[Brittany]

"Hey, you have a vagina!  That means you are qualified!". 

I don't want to be rude, but like last night you are implying again that the only difference between a female and a male is their sexual organs.  This is simply not the case.  Whether you like to believe it is so or not, an average female and an average males life experiences are vastly different, as is our biological make up and societies expectations.  These effect our views on life and what is important to us.  Would you imply the only difference between a black person and white person is skin color?  Because this is a very naive idealistic view. 

A government requires female viewpoints and female opinions.  It has been shown time and time again that women will come out and vote in large numbers when a political party addresses a situation that concerns women, as African-Europeans will come out and vote in large numbers when a policy that affects them is on the line.

It is a fact, that if you poll the female population on issues that affect them, and you poll the male population on issues that affect them, the results are different.  I am not saying that Amy from Cheltenham and Jack from Swansea won't give the exact same results, but on a broader basis there is a definite difference between males and females that I feel you are missing.  Even stemming down to basic needs.  If you go to a chemist, what do you buy?  I'm certain it's different from what I buy.  You can learn what I buy, but you cannot comprehend the importance of the items in the same way you could if you experienced them in the way I do.  I can tell you what they are for, and how important they are, but you will always lack the perspective that comes with actually doing something.  I know you feel men are qualified to speak for women, but if I polled people on the importance of say make up, the male and female responses would be different.

It is for this very reason that it is important to sometimes say "I'd rather have a womens perspective on this".  A committee of 10 men is missing a viewpoint and an opinion that it would have if you replace just one of those men with a woman who shares the general concerns of the female public.  A man can educate himself on giving birth, he can educate himself on childcare, he can educate himself on women's health.  These are issues that affect a majority female base, and in my opinion a woman who has experienced these things is usually in a better situation to understand what can be done to make them better, than a man who has read about them.

It's also very important to have role models.  So many of the women in politics now were inspired by Thatcher.  I'm sure young german women look up to Angela Merkel and are inspired.  There are many things that having a woman in a prominent role brings to women as a whole and I think you overlook a lot of these.

[Silverfyre]

So, because of a few biological differences, men and women should be categorized as being entirely different creatures that see the world completely differently?  On subjects such as child birth and anything that deals with a woman's biology, they absolutely should have the say on it and not rely on the so-called "experts" who happen to also be men.  But when it comes to something as broad and diverse as economics and politics, one's gender does not dictate the person's ability and intellect into such affairs. We will have differing priorities due to gender but it is not as prevalent as you make it out to be. Their life experiences, upbringing and education does and while I do agree that men and women have differences in these departments, I do not believe (as I have stated over and over again) that gender is going to change that much when it comes to politics or positions of power that shape humanity and society. Show me some hard statistics and scientific as well as psychological data that proves otherwise.

As far as making the comparison between say Caucasians and Africans, you should do a bit of research of your own before jumping on peoples' opinions and calling them naive.  There are very few biological differences between these two groups.  In Africans, there are more fast-twitch muscle fibers and some African women have a slightly faster gestation period (source: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.abstract) but beyond, there isn't much besides skin color.  Upbringing and social factors are completely separate factors and I do agree that there is a difference between growing up "white" and growing up "black".  You simplify my views and calling them naive is, quite frankly, rude and does not do what I am saying justice.  Try to refrain from using such comparisons when I made none in my posts.

So on that note, I feel I've said my points in this thread and shall enjoy reading the discussion as it unfolds.  I do not think I have much more to add beyond what I already have and hammering my head against the proverbial brick wall does little good for anyone. 

[Brittany]

So, because of a few biological differences, men and women should be categorized as being entirely different creatures that see the world completely differently?  On subjects such as child birth and anything that deals with a woman's biology, they absolutely should have the say on it and not rely on the so-called "experts" who happen to also be men.  But when it comes to something as broad and diverse as economics and politics, one's gender does not dictate the person's ability and intellect into such affairs. We will have differing priorities due to gender but it is not as prevalent as you make it out to be. Their life experiences, upbringing and education does and while I do agree that men and women have differences in these departments, I do not believe (as I have stated over and over again) that gender is going to change that much when it comes to politics or positions of power that shape humanity and society. Show me some hard statistics and scientific as well as psychological data that proves otherwise.

As far as making the comparison between say Caucasians and Africans, you should do a bit of research of your own before jumping on peoples' opinions and calling them naive.  There are very few biological differences between these two groups.  In Africans, there are more fast-twitch muscle fibers and some African women have a slightly faster gestation period (source: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.abstract) but beyond, there isn't much besides skin color.  Upbringing and social factors are completely separate factors and I do agree that there is a difference between growing up "white" and growing up "black".  You simplify my views and calling them naive is, quite frankly, rude and does not do what I am saying justice.  Try to refrain from using such comparisons when I made none in my posts.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  There is more than biological differences.  You are putting everything down to physical differences and dismissing the completely different cultures and life experiences we have.  We have different goals and different needs out of politics.  A school closing is a far bigger issue to a woman than it is a male on a broad basis.  Society has completely different expectations of men and women and as such our experiences in life differ, which effects the very way we see the world.  I do not want a man who lacks the perspective of a woman to speak for me, or to claim to share my views and I'm sorry you don't like this.

While there may be no biological differences between a white European and an African European, again I feel it is naive to say that they are the same.  They are two completely different life experiences.  Cultures and society are completely different.  A white man living in Europe will on the whole not be subject to racism, where a black man may experience this daily.  It is naive to think that this does not create a completely different person in terms of perspective, viewpoint and opinion. 

People of African origins like to have leaders of African origins because they feel they can best relate to them and best look after their interests.  In the same way I would prefer a female representative who cares about the issues I care about and can put forward my interests.  Men are not qualified to speak on feminine matters that effect me.  Until a man requires the use of a morning after pill, they have no real perspective on it's usage, it can never be an issue that really matters to them as it does me.  Therefore I don't want them deciding how it should be regulated.

[Silverfyre]

Maybe you should re-read my posts before saying I ignore certainly factors when I did indeed address them.  Here, I'll make it easy for you:

So, because of a few biological differences, men and women should be categorized as being entirely different creatures that see the world completely differently?  On subjects such as child birth and anything that deals with a woman's biology, they absolutely should have the say on it and not rely on the so-called "experts" who happen to also be men.  But when it comes to something as broad and diverse as economics and politics, one's gender does not dictate the person's ability and intellect into such affairs. We will have differing priorities due to gender but it is not as prevalent as you make it out to be. Their life experiences, upbringing and education does and while I do agree that men and women have differences in these departments, I do not believe (as I have stated over and over again) that gender is going to change that much when it comes to politics or positions of power that shape humanity and society. Show me some hard statistics and scientific as well as psychological data that proves otherwise.

As far as making the comparison between say Caucasians and Africans, you should do a bit of research of your own before jumping on peoples' opinions and calling them naive.  There are very few biological differences between these two groups.  In Africans, there are more fast-twitch muscle fibers and some African women have a slightly faster gestation period (source: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/1/107.abstract) but beyond, there isn't much besides skin color. Upbringing and social factors are completely separate factors and I do agree that there is a difference between growing up "white" and growing up "black". You simplify my views and calling them naive is, quite frankly, rude and does not do what I am saying justice.  Try to refrain from using such comparisons when I made none in my posts.

So on that note, I feel I've said my points in this thread and shall enjoy reading the discussion as it unfolds.  I do not think I have much more to add beyond what I already have and hammering my head against the proverbial brick wall does little good for anyone. 

[Brittany]

Maybe you should re-read my posts before saying I ignore certainly factors when I did indeed address them.  Here, I'll make it easy for you:

You dismiss it though.  You say that differing priorities is not as prevalent as I make out and leave me to go and find evidence to prove you wrong.   The truth is, we have different priorities and perspectives on almost every matter ever discussed by politicians, from a budget, to education, to health.  Yes both males and females want stable economy and good education for our kids, but our ideals on what is a stable economy and good education are different as we experience different lives.  We break down each subject matter differently.  A school closure effects your average female mother more than a male father.  Someone with perspective on how this affects those mothers, is better to speak on it, than a man who's wife was dealing with it while he was at work (as it is now).

Women need an active voice on health, on education, on business, on womens issues.  They also need to be standing up and speaking out.  Women need to be everywhere, active in sports, active in politics, active in education so we can see that we do have equality, and so that we can inspire the next generation.

It appears to be your belief that a man can speak for a woman and do just as good a job as a woman does except on issues such as womens health.  But that man will never inspire the next generation of young girls to follow careers in sports, education or politics and that in itself is a good enough reason to warrant females having top jobs.

[RubySlippers]

The fact is in the US as of 2011 50.8% of the population are women and 49.2% men so here is the big issue women could vote in women if they wanted to into offices at almost any level and in large numbers. So the question is not me here but why won't women do this?

You could pick a political party of your choice and it doesn't take much to vote people in to win these offices in many elections your lucky if 60% of the voters vote if you get 95% and pick one candidate who is a woman you would win races.

So why is this an issue when women don't seem to want to vote for women? Is it women don't want to enter politics or they are not seen as qualified or do they prefer men over women if they have a choice?

[Silverfyre]

Okay, so you stop making assumptions about my beliefs on the subject, I shall just state them here:

- Men can be feminists. Men can support issues that affect women. Men can experience the female perspective in a non-biological manner. Feminism is a much-needed movement so that equality can be achieved between the genders.

- We need female voices in all fields. Men should not be disqualified because of their gender or differing life experiences. No one should be. I want to see more women and minorites in office and in all things.

- Our life experiences differ due to things aside from just gender. Nothing is so cut and dry like you suggest it. So much factors into life views and experiences: to suggest otherwise is uninformed and unjustified.

- Politics as it is needs to change in some way. We need more women involved.

That's it right there for me. Agree or disagree all you want but stop making assumptions on what I have been saying.

[Brittany]

The fact is in the US as of 2011 50.8% of the population are women and 49.2% men so here is the big issue women could vote in women if they wanted to into offices at almost any level and in large numbers. So the question is not me here but why won't women do this?

You could pick a political party of your choice and it doesn't take much to vote people in to win these offices in many elections your lucky if 60% of the voters vote if you get 95% and pick one candidate who is a woman you would win races.

So why is this an issue when women don't seem to want to vote for women? Is it women don't want to enter politics or they are not seen as qualified or do they prefer men over women if they have a choice?

I don't think it is that women do not want to get into politics but it appears a very male dominated environment and we need to encourage more female participation.  The more women we have, the more that will see it as a valid career and the better the female candidates will get. 

I'm not quite sure how it works in the United States but I believe you vote per state, so the percentages of the population as a whole may not be the same when you take into the individual voting lines.  In the United Kingdom, the parties pick the candidates you can vote for and you rarely get a choice to vote for a female MP or Prime Minister.   

Then you have the fact that while no party will ever outright come out and be sexist, there are sexist people out there who will go to lengths to stop a woman getting a prominent role.  Hilary Clinton, Linda McMahon, Sara Palin have all been victims of some pretty nasty smear campaigns.   I am not claiming them to be of a sexist agenda, but they all had pretty nasty things thrown at them which a lot of male candidates haven't had.  Palin's sex in particular was certainly something that came into play more than it would if she had been a male candidate.

Finally I feel most women vote for the candidate they feel is best.  We have a politican here, Dianne Abbot.  I would not vote for her, regardless of whom she was running against because I think she would be terrible for the country.  I'm not saying vote a woman in for the sake of having a woman.  But I think there should be enough women encouraged into politics that we have decent representation.  I'm not even saying we need a female PM or president.  Just high level representation for the following reasons.

1 to break up the "old boys club" that hasn't really worked for a very long time
2 to inspire young women
3 to provide a female perspective on matters important to women
4 for equality

In all honesty I'm quite surprised anyone disagrees with this in 2013.

- Men can be feminists. Men can experience the female perspective in a non-biological manner.

I disagree strongly with these two opinions, while agreeing that you can be supportive of women.  As I said last night, feminism is not and never will be about men.  It primarily exists because of men.  But I feel we need to move on from this so lets end our discussion here.  Have a nice day.

[Ellipsis]

I disagree strongly with these two opinions, while agreeing that you can be supportive of women.  As I said last night, feminism is not and never will be about men.  It primarily exists because of men.

I'm not very outspoken about my views on things like feminism and such because I realize that people have their own opinions and I'm content with that. However, I do align myself with Silverfyre.

Throughout this thread, I don't think Silverfyre (and correct me if I'm wrong) is implying that feminism is "about him." Now I see no reason why a man cannot claim to be a feminist if he is supporting the same causes as women in the vein of feminism. For example, at my university, I can be a member of the Black Student Union, even though I am white. If feminism is about equality, it seems hypocritical to not equalize the genders in the face of advocating a cause. I also don't think it's fair to discount someone's experiences because of their gender. To make a glaringly facetious and hyperbolic example, a man will never be able to understand the physiological hell that is a menstrual cycle, but there's nothing to stop him from empathizing with or being sympathetic to a woman.

I also think that it's silly to dismiss someone's support because they identify as a member of the male population. There's the notion that gender has a fluid definition. Factoring in transgender members of the community, what about women who identify as men or vice versa? How do they fit into your own definition of feminism?

I'm a member of the feminist group (The F-Word) on my campus and I'll admit that I'm a very conservative feminist. However, that doesn't mean I don't support equality between genders, just because I may enjoy more traditional or stereotypical gender roles. In said group, we do have men ranging from heterosexual to queer to anywhere in between. You mentioned the proverbial "boy's club," but by limiting feminism to women, aren't you just perpetuating the separation of genders by creating a "girl's club" or something similar? It seems as though you're trying to create separate clubs, but make them equal. Separate but equal isn't equal. By excluding other genders from feminism, we're strengthening the inequality, in my opinion. It's saying that your experiences aren't as relevant or as meaningful as mine.

I don't know. I'm just talking aloud. I think that if Silverfyre is taking the time to be a part of and understand this movement, he shouldn't be discredited. And, if we're going by obvious statistics, men hold more positions of power. Personally, I would love to see influential men supporting feminism and setting an example. I'm not saying that women can't do it on their own and need to "rely" on men, so please do not take it as such. There are benefits to being an inclusive, rather than exclusive, group and I think those are being overlooked.

[Silverfyre]

You are indeed correct in your interpretation in what I was trying to get across.  Thank you kindly for explaining what I was saying so eloquently. :)

[BlightRaptor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristina_Fern%C3%A1ndez_de_Kirchner

"Her Excellency Mrs. President of the Argentine Nation"

Just thought I'd share this gal with everyone since it seemed kinda relevant.

[Maiz]

You mentioned the proverbial "boy's club," but by limiting feminism to women, aren't you just perpetuating the separation of genders by creating a "girl's club" or something similar? It seems as though you're trying to create separate clubs, but make them equal. Separate but equal isn't equal. By excluding other genders from feminism, we're strengthening the inequality, in my opinion. It's saying that your experiences aren't as relevant or as meaningful as mine.

A feminist group on campus not allowing men or not actively recruiting men or whatever, or a"girls club" as you called it is nothing like what the "boy's club" is. It's a false equivalency. If a guy feels unwelcome or even uncomfortable in a group for girls he can leave that group and have so much of society, media, government programs, jobs, etc cater to him****. When a woman leaves she has to deal with politicians making laws on her body, on being portrayed as a nagging wife or a slut or a bitch or whatever, of earning less, of incredibly high rates of sexual assault/rape/harassment, etc etc etc. "Boys clubs" are part of a structural/systemic sexism. "Girls clubs" can be excluding and women can even be prejudicial towards men but this is not connected to structures that go across society that discriminate against men.

****and of course this isn't true for all men because you have to factor in race and class and sexuality and other things but if you compare men and women within those categories it is still true. Gay men have more media catering to them vs lesbians. Trans men have more access to formal job sectors than trans women do. Men of color have more movies about them in more complex roles compared to women of color, etc etc. Basically this is a note about intersectionality.

Anyways I think implying that feminism and the experience of womanhood being tied with biology is deterministic and transphobic not to mention it makes womanness something innate and unchanging (which its not). But I also think that yes men can be sympathetic towards women and support women and they can get a glimpse of a woman's experience, but to experience a life filled with sexism is something entirely unique and isn't possible.

[Kythia]

Anyways I think implying that feminism and the experience of womanhood being tied with biology is deterministic and transphobic not to mention it makes womanness something innate and unchanging (which its not).

I couldn't agree with this more.  Tying definitions of female to childbirth, specifically, annoys me greatly.

But I also think that yes men can be sympathetic towards women and support women and they can get a glimpse of a woman's experience, but to experience a life filled with sexism is something entirely unique and isn't possible.

True, true.  But I don't think you have to be personally affected by an issue to be opposed to it.  Just because Silverfyre - who Im apparently now talking about as if he wasn't here, sorry Silverfyre - hasn't personally experienced that life doesn't make his opinions on it less valid.  They do make them different, certainly.  But less valid?  My experience of sexism is almost certainly not the same as yours which isn't the same as, I dunno, Ellipsis'. By ruling out Silverfyre's ability to understand I think you're in danger of almost the same mistake you correctly identify above.  It, to me, comes disturbingly close to claiming there is one true way to be discriminated against and anyone who hasn't experienced that can't, errrrr, can't understand. 

It just seems that while you say that having children, a working womb, two X chromosomes, etc, aren't necessary to be female or a feminist - and as I say I couldn't agree more - you're drawing a bit of an arbitrary line at saying cis males who present as male (sorry if Im making assumptions, Silverfyre) can't understand.

Sorry, but hungover and I can't tell if that made any sense or not.  Hit me up if it didn't and I'll clarify.

[Ellipsis]

A feminist group on campus not allowing men or not actively recruiting men or whatever, or a"girls club" as you called it is nothing like what the "boy's club" is. It's a false equivalency. If a guy feels unwelcome or even uncomfortable in a group for girls he can leave that group and have so much of society, media, government programs, jobs, etc cater to him****. When a woman leaves she has to deal with politicians making laws on her body, on being portrayed as a nagging wife or a slut or a bitch or whatever, of earning less, of incredibly high rates of sexual assault/rape/harassment, etc etc etc. "Boys clubs" are part of a structural/systemic sexism. "Girls clubs" can be excluding and women can even be prejudicial towards men but this is not connected to structures that go across society that discriminate against men.

I don't mean to compare the gravity of one to the other because there isn't a comparison. I only meant to use an example of my own experiences to highlight men in feminist organizations and  the nature of equality/inequality. A campus group and a grossly perpetrated social norm are two different things. However, both have the ability to impose stipulations and rules based on gender to equalize or discriminate against others. I suppose my point is that, for a group promoting the equality of genders in all spheres, it seems almost hypocritical to advocate the separation or exclusion of a gender on the basis that one is a member of the offending group. 

[Maiz]

I couldn't agree with this more.  Tying definitions of female to childbirth, specifically, annoys me greatly.

True, true.  But I don't think you have to be personally affected by an issue to be opposed to it.  Just because Silverfyre - who Im apparently now talking about as if he wasn't here, sorry Silverfyre - hasn't personally experienced that life doesn't make his opinions on it less valid.  They do make them different, certainly.  But less valid?  My experience of sexism is almost certainly not the same as yours which isn't the same as, I dunno, Ellipsis'. By ruling out Silverfyre's ability to understand I think you're in danger of almost the same mistake you correctly identify above.  It, to me, comes disturbingly close to claiming there is one true way to be discriminated against and anyone who hasn't experienced that can't, errrrr, can't understand. 

It just seems that while you say that having children, a working womb, two X chromosomes, etc, aren't necessary to be female or a feminist - and as I say I couldn't agree more - you're drawing a bit of an arbitrary line at saying cis males who present as male (sorry if Im making assumptions, Silverfyre) can't understand.

Sorry, but hungover and I can't tell if that made any sense or not.  Hit me up if it didn't and I'll clarify.

I just said they can understand. But understanding does not mean experiencing and I dont think that understanding a life entrenched in an oppressive system when you are not affected it is possible.  I don't think it's arbitrary at all to say that men can't fully/completely understand how women have to live in system where they have to be fearful every day for being hurt/killed for being a woman. In fact a lot of women are not aware of how their individual problems (for instance being cat called on the street or harassed or even personal experiences with sexual assault) are tied to a societal attitude (the idea that women do not control their bodies and instead exist to be objectified or whatever you want to call it). It's a big thing to think about. Instead a lot of women I think compartmentalize their experiences or think "if I do xyz then I'll be okay", when really it's not that easy since you can't controll others and these societal attitudes are so strong and prevalent.

And Ellipsis- I have problems with feminist separatism for entirely different reasons (mostly because of the racist/classist/imperialist history of certain kinds of separatism). But at the same time- it is important for women to have spaces that are free of men to talk about women's issues. I think you're hung up on feminist groups discriminating against men. Another form of separatism is women's shelters. Technically they separate women from men but I personally think it's fine because women who are running from the violence of men oftentimes don't want to be around men for good reason. (and of course there's nuance for this, mostly a lack of men's shelters to deal w/this issue but that is an entirely different topic unrelated to this idea of separatism). Men's input can be valuable in certain issues and there should be a critical critiquing of masculinity and a reconstruction of masculinity, but I do think there are times appropriate to have spaces without men.

[Ellipsis]

And Ellipsis- I have problems with feminist separatism for entirely different reasons (mostly because of the racist/classist/imperialist history of certain kinds of separatism). But at the same time- it is important for women to have spaces that are free of men to talk about women's issues. I think you're hung up on feminist groups discriminating against men. Another form of separatism is women's shelters. Technically they separate women from men but I personally think it's fine because women who are running from the violence of men oftentimes don't want to be around men for good reason. (and of course there's nuance for this, mostly a lack of men's shelters to deal w/this issue but that is an entirely different topic unrelated to this idea of separatism). Men's input can be valuable in certain issues and there should be a critical critiquing of masculinity and a reconstruction of masculinity, but I do think there are times appropriate to have spaces without men.

I do recognize that there are times when women need a safe space. I've been in situations where I needed those same accommodations. However, in the umbrella concept of feminism, I believe those who identify as men, as well as any other gender in between, should be included if they share the same values and beliefs inherent in feminism. If a group of women want to have a space to talk about women's issues, they should. I completely agree with you on that point. I also don't mean to limit myself to "feminist groups" and my example was just that, an example. Simply put and boiled down to the barest sense, in the grand scheme of things, I do not think that feminism should be strictly specific to that of just women.

[Caehlim]

I don't think it's arbitrary at all to say that men can't fully/completely understand how women have to live in system where they have to be fearful every day for being hurt/killed for being a woman.

You really think there are no men in the world that haven't been through an analogous experience?

[Maiz]

You really think there are no men in the world that haven't been through an analogous experience?

look at my previous post and look at my note about intersectionality. when me and a friend go walking at night he does not have to worry about gender based violence where as i do.

[Trieste]

But there are men who have to worry about being hurt/killed for being gay. Or trans*. Or a goth, or just strange-looking. There are men who have to worry about being hurt/killed for being developmentally disabled, or for being the wrong religion. Some of these are choices and some of them are very vehemently not choices.

I would say very emphatically that some men can sympathize, and many men can empathize.

[Maiz]

I believe I made a note like the first post I put here about intersectionality which is what you are getting at. I am not denying that men of color or gay men or trans men etc dont get discriminated because they are not white, or not straight, or not cis and frankly i dont know where you're getting that at all.

Because a gay man is targeted for being gay does not equate to having an experience w/sexism. A man cannot experience gender based crimes or crimes based on sexism nor does a man experience structural oppression simply for being male. when a man experiences oppression or violence it's because he is being structurally oppressed for being gay or trans or poor, etc you get my gist. But i mean the world is a messy place because then conversations like these have to realize the reality of women of color or queer women or trans women or poor women or gay men of color or whatever.

lmao i haven't said that men don't/cant sympathize. in fact i directly said men can sympathize. but sympathy or even empathy is not the same as lived experience. Let me put it this way. If you heard the experiences of someone who survived a war or a genocide or whatever or maybe you even get a controlled example of what that was like, you would still not get the full experience because you did not go through that war or that genocide and once the imaginary lecture or whatever is done you can walk away where as the survivor has to deal with the PTSD or the stress or the reality every single day. Does this mean you can't sympathize? No, you can, of course. It's ridiculous to say you can't. Does this mean you can't empathize? Again, no, I'm sure a lot of people can empathize but understanding/sympathizing does not equal the same experience. It's a nuance and might seem a little "wow why even care about such a 'small' thing" but it's important to keep in mind so that we realize that a gay person living in a homophobic society, or a woman living in a sexist society, etc has to deal with homophobia or sexism or whatever every single day, in ways subtle and overt. I just think it's a little patronizing when someone who is not part of a marginalized group (and indeed belongs to the hegemonic group) says they completely absolutely understand what that marginalized person goes through. Because they don't. Does that make more sense maybe?

[Trieste]

There is more than one form of structural oppression, however, and women don't have the market cornered on that. It's, frankly, arrogant and dismissive to try to imply that men are utterly incapable of feeling the same kind of feelings. In fact, that's pretty much sexism - and there aren't degrees of 'okay' sexism. It's not like, "Well, I'm just a little sexist" or "I'm not institutionally sexist" makes it okay.

But what does that have to do with women in politics, exactly?

[Maiz]

No women don't have the market cornered on oppression but on a discussion about sexism they kind of do. I do not see how it's arrogant or dismissive to say a guy can't completely comprehend what it's like to deal with institutionalized/structural sexism. Same thing about straight people and homophobia, or the rich and the poor, or white people and people of color, etc.

Again, they can sympathize, but it's not the same as living it. Men in marginalized groups can even say "i understand what it feels to deal with institutionalized oppression" but that doesnt necessarily mean they understand sexism. All oppressions are different and the experiences of them are different. I would not say to my mom that just because I've experienced sexism/racism/homophobia that that means I completely know how she experiences ableism, that I know what she goes through. I know how structural oppression works in general but I don't experience ableism so while I sympathize with her I won't claim that my feelings on the subject are as important as her actual lived experiences, or whatever.

And that is a good question.

[Caehlim]

Xiaomei,

No one is an island. Groups like Pflag exist because everyone is harmed by oppression and discrimination.

My parents are straight, but do you think the homophobia that I suffer from doesn't hurt them? I know when my sister suffers because of sexism, that hurts me as well. When my brother suffers from prejudice against those with mental illness do you think I'm unaffected?

I don't think anyone's voice should be excluded from the discussion. Hatred and bigotry is everyone's problem. The last thing we need is more division.

If you think people don't understand your experience, explain it to them. Make them understand, because that's how we're going to get change. We're all writers and roleplayers here. It's our duty to let people understand that which they've never experienced themselves so that we (as an entire society) can fix these damn problems.

[Brittany]

Xiao mei, I'm very sorry for my insensitive comments linking child birth to feminism.  It is a matter that regularly comes up in my women's meetings and with friends, and obviously is an important part of being a woman, however it was not my intention to neglect or offend anybody else.  Things such as maternity wards closures or cuts are often addressed by feminist groups, and this was what I had in mind when I made the comment.  I am not qualified to speak on the issue outside of natural childbirth because quite honestly I know very little about it, but I did not mean to dismiss anybody.   I have perhaps a slightly extreme view, which is a product of my life, and I've maybe got off to a wrong foot with some people.  Wasn't my intention.  I'll try to address it better, and add my thought process to my comments.

When it comes to sexism and oppression of women, I honestly do not believe a male can really comprehend.  Simply because he was born with the ability to become a catholic priest and one day maybe even be pope, and this is a door that has been closed because I wasn't born a guy.  I think even that last sentence is read differently by men and women because experiencing something and reading something give you different perspectives.  I've known what I can and can't do throughout my life, and its far more restricting than what you can and cannot do.  Therefore we have different views.  You add in our different biology, and even if our lives were the same, we'd see them in a different way.

I believe men can speak out and say it's not fair I can't be Pope.  I believe men can want me to be able to be Pope.  I believe men can support me in rallying to become pope (but may not always be welcome to, i'll get onto that).  But I don't believe men can really deep down truly understand how it feels to have so many doors shut through gender.  This doesn't really happen to men, it's the opposite for you.  You get a field that is full of female participation such as cooking, and male publishers and businessmen still make sure the men dominate said field with the top restaurants and the best marketed cookbooks (10 male chefs all better than the 30 million female ones?  really?).  Top doctors in female medicine?  Men (expert on vaginas, the man without a vagina?)  Top coaches of female sports teams?  Men (what a male basketballer brings to a netball team a former female netball player can't I'll never understand).  It's a man's world, you dominate the male environments and you dominate the female environments.  You did so originally by bullying and playing unfair and you continue to do so because you are unwilling to give it up.  You've let women be doctors now, time to step down Mr. leading gynaecologist.  You've let women coach, so let us coach our teams in our sports or let us go coach in the NFL and the Premier League.  And if there aren't 10,000 women that would do a better job than Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey, I'd be stunned to be honest.  Its time the positions men gained through bullying and corruption are given back to us.

I do not want men to help me to become pope, because the reason I can't do most of these things is because men won't let me.  If I win the right to become pope, I do it for the most part in spite of men.  While I know the path of "this man has blocked me, all men are evil" is the wrong one, it's actually a very tempting one sometimes.  When a man claims I am sexist, i find it quite difficult to feel too bad about it, because this is something that has been vastly unfairly weighted towards me for all of my life, and my mother and grandmother before that.  One or two politically incorrect comments on a message board that you dislike does not equate to, nor hold the same weight as hundreds of generations of women in my family being unfairly treated.  This may surprise you, but there are women out there who feel a few hundreds years of male servitude still wouldn't be "equality".  Women have been treat badly for a long long time now.  Men saying "ahh but we support you now" doesn't make it alright to a lot of us.

Males who want to be feminists or support feminism need to kinda understand that the majority of almost any feminist issue originated with a man saying "they can't do that" or "they don't deserve that" or "they should do this" and wow do some of us resent this.  While you shouldn't be all held accountable for the actions of other men, feminism in my view doesn't really want male support.  It wants, and needs male action.  Men need to make other men accountable for their actions and this starts at the top.  You need to be locking up anyone that stops a woman getting anything because she is a woman, and treat it like people treat racism.  Criminal activity.  There are too many old boys clubs in the most important fields, politics, education, business, and they are holding women down as they always have, just using different methods to do so.  What we need from men, is this stopped, not for you to cheerlead on marches.

The feminist group I used to attend, males were flat out not welcomed.  Not even the staff.  Many of the women there had been abused, held down, or were not comfortable in the presence of men.  So we simply didn't let men join, and noone ever complained or questioned it.  Is that sexist?  It could be argued to be.  But in that same vein, you could argue african american conferences are racist.  Those women members that would have left if men were allowed in are more important to the feminist organisation than the male members because feminism is an ideal for and about women.  It isn't just about equality or for understanding.  It's by women for women, for issues that affect women.  Empowering women and communities and helping women to help themselves and each other.  We find out what women want and then we combine to make life better for other women.  It's one of the only organisations that isn't about, for or influenced by men.  And we've been shut out of so many organisations over the years, so like I said, the sexism argument doesn't really wash with me. 

With a few of the "male feminists" I've encountered it seems like being a "feminist" is something to add another layer of depth to themselves, or they feel they are being right and just (and usually stand up for any liberal campaign there is).  Thats a different kind of feminism to the lady who was raped in her teens, pushed into a shelter by an abusive partner, then disallowed promotion because she is a woman.  I actually find men who say they have the same perspective as this woman, quite arrogant and insulting.  It's belittling to her that you feel women's rights is just as big an issue and as important to your life as it is to her and hers.  And also who are you to vote for that woman?  To have a voice of equal importance to that woman?  The moment men get a say in feminism, it isn't feminism anymore.  No matter how much you feel you understand, you are bringing a male opinion and view to an ideal which is built on women's opinions and views.

I don't claim to understand men either.  Everything I have said here, i would hold myself to when it comes to understanding the BGLT community, men, people from another culture.  I can love them, I can support them.  I can be hurt when something hurts them.  But I can't ever truly comprehend them unless their situation is similar to situations I have suffered, and then like I said, I can relate, but never really understand.

So while I truly hope noone is offended, I feel some of you need to try to be a little less sensitive.  Because feminism is for women and female transgenders where the rights cross over.  Essentially it's fighting against male opinions, institutions and ideals.  As such, you aren't always going to be made to feel welcome, respected or trusted as a "male feminist" and you need to accept there are valid reasons behind that.  Men have after all held us back since the beginning of time.