Should men describe themselves as feminists, if they are supportive of feminism?

[Johnny Vodka]

You always trot out 'my colleagues often confide in me' on these threads.

Why is that?

I'm not going to argue with you any more on this thread. I appreciate you might not enjoy humour, but please stop dictating to me how I should feel or trying to make out that I offend my colleagues. I get on with my colleagues. Sitting in front of a computer all day, light hearted 'banter'/laughing/bonding is what keeps us (and I imagine many other office workers) sane.

 

[equationgirl]

I'm not going to argue with you any more on this thread. I appreciate you might not enjoy humour, but please stop dictating to me how I should feel or trying to make out that I offend my colleagues. I get on with my colleagues. Sitting in front of a computer all day, light hearted 'banter'/laughing/bonding is what keeps us (and I imagine many other office workers) sane.

I enjoy humour ffs not just humour that judges others or is racist/homophobic/discriminatory.

I haven't 'dictated' anything to you. I have, however, asked you to show more consideration to others, which is usually not evident in your posts on urban including those where you talk about your colleagues.

If that makes me humourless in your eyes, so be it, I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

some people are capable of humour that doesn't involve any combination of racism / sexism / homophobia / prejudice against disabled people...

 

[Vintage Paw]

I'm supportive of gender equality as part of the wider struggles for a classless society/world. I don't agree with all feminist arguments/positions - something that feminists probably feel too. I sort of lump it in with identity politics, so on that basis I Don't consider myself one. In an ideal world it wouldn't be needed as anarchism/communism should be making identitcal arguments. Unfortunately anarchism/communism (UK context) resides in a capitalist/patriarchal framework and some of the attitudes persist, even subconsciously, within radical groups - which still appear to be white male dominated for the most part - hence feminism needs to exist as a counterbalance as much as anything else.

This is something I've been thinking about. The arguments that we should just be focusing on the class fight, and all else will follow, is frankly bullshit because at the moment when I envisage what a socialist/communist society might look like, if it is made up of the current population of the UK I still see a sexist, patriarchal one. It might be easier to challenge sexism under those conditions, but I'd rather my socialism incorporate feminism (or call it anti-sexism if you're precious that way), anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, etc now, rather than expect magically everyone will have a personality transplant come the good revolution. Not to mention that no matter what the end point might be for class struggle, I'm not going to ignore the shit people go through today even if it means working in some way within the established system.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Re. 'humour':

Two points:

1) the "god you're just so humourless" has been used since time began (probably, I wasn't there) to discredit people who argue/fight against sexism, racism, homophobia, etc., and to protect the interests of those who already enjoy a level of power and privilege in society so they can continue to have their fun at the expense of anyone and everyone if they so desire - as arguments go, "you have no sense of humour" is a shit one

2) it's bandied around a bit but it's a good phrase to keep in mind: punch up, don't punch down. That means by all means take the piss out of people, have a laugh, make light of things, but don't do so at the expense of people with less power than you. Take aim at those above you. Look at Spitting Image -- it mocked people in power. Would we think of it in the same way if all the puppets were exaggerated caricatures of poor people on benefits or immigrants trying to learn English and navigate a new culture? It 'punched up.' When people get in a tiz about this or that comedian saying something off-colour, more often than not it's when they are punching down. They and their fans defend their jokes, saying "but bantz!" or "god, can't you take a joke?" or "the feminazis want to stop people having fun" or "it's equal opportunity mocking, I make fun of everybody!" without the slightest bit of understanding of why there is a difference between punching up and punching down.

Edit: or maybe they do understand the difference, and are just protecting their position of power and asserting that belief that their ability to not be told what to do, to not think about the consequences their behaviour might have, to never put anyone else first, is more important *and always will be more important* than the ability of others to not be treated like shit on a personal and societal level.

 

[alsoknownas]

I was brought up very much with the idea that feminism was a movement of women self-organising and drawing strength from each other. Not saying that that's the only valid version of feminism, or that it's even still the ideal. But the idea is so deeply ingrained in me that I would never describe myself as a feminist.
I don't really like any of the other labels either though (ally, whatever), and I guess it's not completely fair as men who don't support the ideals of feminism do have an appropriate label that fits.

(fucking dickheads, of course )

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure which bit you are considering the point she is starting from, but tbh I'm quite tired and due to that as well as mild drunkenness aren't likely to deliver a cogent overall analysis of the piece at this juncture.

The point she is starting from is one of conflict. That everything in society is the product of one idea - patriarchy. That men can only have exploitative relations with women - see her disgusting comment about a son inevitably growing up to be an exploiter or rapist to see this.

It's so wrong it's laughable. It's so spirit-sapping as a way to look at the world that it makes the heart sink. It is so patronising towards anyone who thinks differently that it ought to be rejected outright by everyone on here.

 

[seventh bullet]

This is something I've been thinking about. The arguments that we should just be focusing on the class fight, and all else will follow, is frankly bullshit because at the moment when I envisage what a socialist/communist society might look like, if it is made up of the current population of the UK I still see a sexist, patriarchal one. It might be easier to challenge sexism under those conditions, but I'd rather my socialism incorporate feminism (or call it anti-sexism if you're precious that way), anti-racism, anti-homophobia, anti-transphobia, etc now, rather than expect magically everyone will have a personality transplant come the good revolution. Not to mention that no matter what the end point might be for class struggle, I'm not going to ignore the shit people go through today even if it means working in some way within the established system.

If you were attacking him, then he wasn't saying what you attacked him for. Looks to me like he's thinking along the same lines as you.

Your International Working Women's Day post on the other thread made the point very very well, of the importance of class in the struggles that are often seen as separate, or how and why one particular understanding of how society functions is deliberately ignored or attacked as irrelevant. It's that kind of perspective that helped to bring me to this much-maligned thing called communism. As well as personal experience.

I'm trying to think of that Martin Glaberman quote butchersapron posted up a while back about people (warts and all) in one society and their relationship here and now to a politics that opens up the potentialities of creating a new one. Conditions don't completely dissolve in a future when there is a critical mass of people that are pristine and no longer think or act in particular ways. You get there, to another imperfect society eventually, through struggle. And it's messy, very messy.

I think C66 was getting at that, how that process can transform. That's the point of 'revolution,' no? Seeing class as important doesn't mean not attacking other power structures, far from it. What is the point of a 'feminism' if the vast majority of women are excluded from the benefits won through struggle? In whose interests was it for? What is the point of a 'socialism' that neither seeks to challenge patriarchal power structures but also actively works to maintain them? I think someone who used to post here talked about a conversation he had with his (anarchist) wife on the subject of feminism and class. It was along the lines of 'glass ceilings' showing up the limits of what struggle can bring for certain classes of people within the context of capitalism, and utter exclusion for many more. For everyone, it might be more fruitful to have a look at what's going on down on the stone floor.

I sound like a wally, don't I?

 

[8ball]

The point she is starting from is one of conflict. That everything in society is the product of one idea - patriarchy. That men can only have exploitative relations with women - see her disgusting comment about a son inevitably growing up to be an exploiter or rapist to see this.

It's so wrong it's laughable. It's so spirit-sapping as a way to look at the world that it makes the heart sink. It is so patronising towards anyone who thinks differently that it ought to be rejected outright by everyone on here.

I'm not sure about the last bit, I like to think of Urban as a nursing home for laughably wrong ideas.

 

[Vintage Paw]

If you were attacking him, then he wasn't saying what you attacked him for. Looks to me like he's thinking along the same lines as you.

I wasn't attacking him. His post reminded me it's something I've been thinking about recently, and I wanted to set out my thoughts. His post was a jumping off point, not something I was countering.

Edit: and no, you don't sound like a wally

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Re. 'humour':

I think I agree with your post. (Sorry, well-oiled again. ) My point is humour in general. There are people who I often disagree with on here who I find hilarious (even, sometimes, when their humour is pointedly aimed at me), and there are people who don't seem to have humour in their arsenal at all. Which is fine. But I also don't think it's right to have a go at people just because they use humour. One thing to understand about humour is that it doesn't necessarily equate to happiness or not taking things seriously. It's just a way of processing/dealing with life. That may or may not make sense.

 

[Vintage Paw]

This is timely: https://laurakbuzz.wordpress.com/20...-study-in-responsible-humour-on-taboo-topics/ -- about 'responsible' humour. Basically a case-in-point analysis of punching up as opposed to punching down.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I think I agree with your post. (Sorry, well-oiled again. ) My point is humour in general. There are people who I often disagree with on here who I find hilarious (even, sometimes, when their humour is pointedly aimed at me), and there are people who don't seem to have humour in their arsenal at all. Which is fine. But I also don't think it's right to have a go at people just because they use humour. One thing to understand about humour is that it doesn't necessarily equate to happiness or not taking things seriously. It's just a way of processing/dealing with life. That may or may not make sense.

I think we're talking past each other on the same point, really. Yes, some people use humour to deal with sadness, grief, anger, all sorts of things. That's not in question, I don't think. But regardless of the reasons you're using humour, it doesn't absolve you of all responsibility for the consequences of what you say. It is possible to be funny, to use humour, to tell jokes, without making other disadvantaged people the butt of those jokes. And if you do lash out in anger or sadness and tell a racist joke, for example, you being sad doesn't make it okay.

You might find the link I posted in the post above this interesting. Maybe one for when you're not pissed.

 

[equationgirl]

I think I agree with your post. (Sorry, well-oiled again. ) My point is humour in general. There are people who I often disagree with on here who I find hilarious (even, sometimes, when their humour is pointedly aimed at me), and there are people who don't seem to have humour in their arsenal at all. Which is fine. But I also don't think it's right to have a go at people just because they use humour. One thing to understand about humour is that it doesn't necessarily equate to happiness or not taking things seriously. It's just a way of processing/dealing with life. That may or may not make sense.

No-one was having a go at you because you used humour. It was repeatedly pointed out that using humour at someone else's expense through racism, homophobia, sexism, and yes their class isn't very fucking funny.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

I think we're talking past each other on the same point, really. Yes, some people use humour to deal with sadness, grief, anger, all sorts of things. That's not in question, I don't think. But regardless of the reasons you're using humour, it doesn't absolve you of all responsibility for the consequences of what you say. It is possible to be funny, to use humour, to tell jokes, without making other disadvantaged people the butt of those jokes. And if you do lash out in anger or sadness and tell a racist joke, for example, you being sad doesn't make it okay.

My everyday humour is really people's habits and also people's interactions with one another - how they subtly wind each other up, bump off each other and the little power wrestles (as long as it doesn't come to proper grief, coz no-one wants to sit in an office where there's a proper war on).

 

[Vintage Paw]

No-one was having a go at you because you used humour. It was repeatedly pointed out that using humour at someone else's expense through racism, homophobia, sexism, and yes their class isn't very fucking funny.

Oh I don't know. I'll laugh at jokes about straight, rich, white men till the cows come home.

 

[8ball]

Oh I don't know. I'll laugh at jokes about straight, rich, white men till the cows come home.

I can't think of one of those right now. Maybe there should be a thread.

 

[equationgirl]

Oh I don't know. I'll laugh at jokes about straight, rich, white men till the cows come home.

I think there is a rich twat exception always in force though

 

[Johnny Vodka]

So anything goes as long as the subject is white, male and has a bit of money? Or are you folks joking?

 

[8ball]

So anything goes as long as the subject is white, male and has a bit of money? Or are you folks joking?

I think the financial requirements can vary.

 

[weepiper]

So anything goes as long as the subject is white, male and has a bit of money?

Yep

Or are you folks joking?

Nope

 

[equationgirl]

So anything goes as long as the subject is white, male and has a bit of money? Or are you folks joking?

Ffs read the thread.

For once in your life READ THE THREAD.

 

[Vintage Paw]

So anything goes as long as the subject is white, male and has a bit of money? Or are you folks joking?

idk Johnny. Maybe if you had a sense of humour you'd know

 

[Johnny Vodka]

I'm not going to tell people what jokes they can tell, but, like (I presume) everyone else, I have an alarm that goes off sometimes alerting me 'that joke was wrong or unnecessarily cruel'. Kind of goes back to the assumption that just because someone is white, male and has money everything is rosy. Have a think about the number of famous rich white males who have topped themselves. If there is to be responsibility in humour, they have as much right to this protection as anyone else.. IMO.

 

[Vintage Paw]

I, for one, shall commit to never telling another joke about Jeremy Clarkson in case I hurt his fee-fees. In the spirit of rich white man solidarity. There really aren't enough people looking out for people like him, after all.

*raises solidarity fist*

 

[8ball]

I, for one, shall commit to never telling another joke about Jeremy Clarkson in case I hurt his fee-fees. In the spirit of rich white man solidarity. There really aren't enough people looking out for people like him, after all.

*raises solidarity fist*

I think some people might have gone off script and found reasons to be pissed of with Clarkson that had nothing to do with his race, sex or bank balance.

 

[Vintage Paw]

Life gets really weird around here sometimes, when one of your posts gets a like from both weepiper AND Johnny.

 

[weepiper]

 

[Corax]

I would feel a bit uncomfortable describing myself as such, but is it unwise to feel this?

I do, and I'm quite comfortable with it. Just my tuppence worth.

 

[equationgirl]

I think some people might have gone off script and found reasons to be pissed of with Clarkson that had nothing to do with his race, sex or bank balance.

His massive twattishness perchance?