Our Shared Shelf discussion

Men have a tendency to fear and be disgusted by even just the word, feminism. This book plays multiple story lines, each intersecting and shining a light on power's manipulative force. It alters the status quo, but at the same time, questions it. With this in mind, I propose this question to you"

Do you think there is a point in which feminism can be corrosive and lead to the same problems and travesties we currently endure? Can we reach our ultimate end goal of defining, establishing, and achieving political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes? And if so, how? Or, by changing the paradigm, we will end up where we are now, but with men being subjugated and mistreated?

Hi Kelli,
It's funny I came across this post because I was just thinking along these lines today.
My favourite definition of feminism comes from How to be a Woman by Caitlin Moran. She basically sums it up as the freedom of choice; the same freedom the men enjoy.
But I was thinking whether feminism can at some point be extended to the men. I know, I know, it totally defeats the purpose of feminism. But I wish there was some movement with the principles of feminism that included the men as well. Men fear/hate feminism IMO because it's painted in society as these angry women who want to take men down. Naturally, they'd be against it. And a lot of so-called feminists are about women being above the men in some way. Which could end up leading to the situation you've described above.

I guess what I'm rambling about is that "true" feminism is just about levelling the playing field, so it wouldn't be possible for one sex to have a distinct advantage over the other. And I really would like to see a movement that includes men. Who's telling them that their bodies are beautiful just the way they are? Who's telling them that it's okay to break traditional masculine norms? Who's telling them that their worth is more than just earning the bigger income? Y'know?

I would argue that feminism does do those things

- Feminism pushes that custody battles should not favor mothers over fathers because of the outdated stereotype that says all mothers are natural caregivers
- Feminism believes that women can be career focused while having House Husbands take care of the family / home.
- Feminism gives permission to men to express their emotions without fearing being told "Man Up" or "stop being a Crybaby." Feminism insists that men have the same amount of emotional capacity as women, and that holding it back or prohibiting oneself from feeling can be extremely detrimental
- Feminism also says than men can be nurses or social workers or elementary school teachers or administrative assistants without society judging them for being effeminate. They don't need to be called Murse, for example. Professions should be gender neutral.
- Feminism believes that single men who are caregivers should not also be immediately assumed to be pedophiles with the same breath that women who don't want to have children aren't cold hearted or worst
- Feminism believes that clothes shouldn't be gender specific either. If a dude wants to wear a dress - why should that be offensive?

Etc etc.

Like you said, feminism is all about choice. The current cultural climate dictates that we should be in regimented boxes.

the problem with words is the ideas one puts behind it. And words like feminism are very complex to comprehend for some people because they must imagine it's difficult and impossible. So they reject it like a reflex. Female rights might be less vague to use..

Kelli wrote: "Men have a tendency to fear and be disgusted by even just the word, feminism. This book plays multiple story lines, each intersecting and shining a light on power's manipulative force. It alters th..."

Some people spread a simple and harmful idea of feminism like it's a movement to simply reverse the actual situation of men powered world. We have to fight against that idea.

I think feminism is a word which say "whether you're a woman or a man, you can live your life as you want and no wall will be on your path to do what you want".

Men have a great part to play to reach this goal and this can be achieved mainly by education provided by schools, universities, media and so on. It's an hard work, it will takes time but I'm sure the goal will be reached sooner than expected, minds are changing... : )

Terri wrote: "Hi Kelli,
It's funny I came across this post because I was just thinking along these lines today.
My favourite definition of feminism comes from How to be a Woman by Caitlin Moran. She basically su..."

I completely agree with you ideas, Terri! I believe in that feminism also: one that levels the playing field, and in doing so, corrects toxic masculinity.

Robin wrote: "the problem with words is the ideas one puts behind it. And words like feminism are very complex to comprehend for some people because they must imagine it's difficult and impossible. So they rejec..."

True. It has such a negative connotation with it that we almost need a new word to describe this movement, especially if our aim is to be inter-sectional. Equalism would work, except it's not a real word, and equality is so subjective that the buy-in would be even more challenging for people to grasp.

Lewis wrote: "Kelli wrote: "Men have a tendency to fear and be disgusted by even just the word, feminism. This book plays multiple story lines, each intersecting and shining a light on power's manipulative force..."

I completely agree! As an educator, this is something I strongly strive for in my classroom. It's one step I can take to make a larger difference for our future generations. I just wish more of my generation as well as older generations were on board with this movement, so all of our collect small efforts could make a larger difference in stopping the perpetuation of negative attributes to the movement.

Pam wrote: "I would argue that feminism does do those things

- Feminism pushes that custody battles should not favor mothers over fathers because of the outdated stereotype that says all mothers are natural c..."

I love this breakdown so much!

I think it's mostly pointless trying to get men on board. They always do it from a vested interest of "but what about my rights too?"

As feminist journalist Verashni Pillay said, sometimes it is a zero sum game and we shouldn't be afraid of that.

If a company board is 8 men and 2 women. Then yes, at LEAST 3 of those men need to be removed and replaced by women.

You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Men feel threatened? So what. I'm more concerned with the millions of women being truly oppressed. They should be our sole concern.

Jasmine wrote: "I think it's mostly pointless trying to get men on board. They always do it from a vested interest of "but what about my rights too?"

As feminist journalist Verashni Pillay said, sometimes it is a..."


As I said several times before in others topics, I'm not agree with the begining of your comment. Some men don't understand the issue but not all of them. And men who understand the issue have to change minds of men who don't understand. You see what I mean ?

Nevertheless, I'm agree to reach a 50/50 ratio of men/women in companies. I think the issue must also be taken at schools' level. In some domains, we can't hire as women as we want to reach the 50/50 ratio 'cause there aren't enough women trained on these sectors. I work in IT and we try to hire more women but jobs remains 80 percent taken by men...

I don't feel threatened by equality at all. I think if all is well done, everyone can have his place in an equal world.

I'm also agree with you that millions of women truly oppressed in their everyday life are a priority.

Jasmine,

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. From what you've stayed, you so not want true equality and maybe misunderstand the feminist movement. Feminism is about equality, not a changing of the paradigm from a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society.

With your boardroom business example, those who are most qualified to be at that level should be there.

Lewis, my fiance is an engineer and let me tell you why there aren't a lot of female engineers to continue with your example of females in tech. Women who go into engineering and take on internships are less respected and are oftentimes given glorified secretarial work to do at the internship, which then causes them to drop out. It's a toxic male environment that is systematic, so treating women as equals and actually giving them true engineering tasks would be the way to shift that mindset. Enrollment in engineering is actually 50/50 for gender, but women drop out do to the toxic male environment and the disrespect. Here's a great article about it: https://hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-man...

Kelli wrote: "Jasmine,

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. From what you've stayed, you so not want true equality and maybe misunderstand the feminist movement. Feminism is about equality, not a cha..."

This article is very interesting, thank you ! : )

I know it remains a "toxic masculinity" in engineering and that it's the reason of drop out of some women already enrolled. I'm sad about that and it has to change.

I don't know the actual gender ratio enrollement in engineering per sector.

I studied electronic engineering and IT engineering a while ago. During my studies in electronic, there was absolutly no woman enrolled in this speciality and during my studies in IT engineering, there was only two women enrolled. So at that time and where I did my studies, we were far from the 50/50 for gender enrolled on these sectors.

Which needs to change. But not by kicking out men from their jobs just because they drew the short straw. We need to change these paradigms

Pam wrote: "Which needs to change. But not by kicking out men from their jobs just because they drew the short straw. We need to change these paradigms"

Until we accept that balancing power means those with more (men) must give some up, or have it seized from them, progress will be at glacial speeds.

Jasmine wrote: "Pam wrote: "Which needs to change. But not by kicking out men from their jobs just because they drew the short straw. We need to change these paradigms"

Until we accept that balancing power means ..."

Like @Pam, I think the change has to be progressive to avoid a social disaster...

Lewis wrote: "Jasmine wrote: "Pam wrote: "Which needs to change. But not by kicking out men from their jobs just because they drew the short straw. We need to change these paradigms"

Until we accept that balanc..."

What social disaster? Replacing privileged male staff and leaders with able and competent women will bring about a more progressive future. Where girls truly believe and know that nothing can hold them back.

Jasmine, you're a business woman. So walk me through the cost of business to replace these people.

Do you suggest firing them?
- What about their relationships with customers?
- What about their tribal knowledge that they have gained?
- Do you have anyone who is as competent to replace them in house or would you need to hire someone from outside? Would that be covered by a headhunter or in house?
- What would be the ROI of this new person being hired in? How soon will you begin to see results?
- How do you fire them without opening yourself up for lawsuits for sexism?

I think no one talked about "firing men" here. The example mentioned a company board; aren't these positions of a few-years term, members of a board needing to be reelected after some time? This is when some men could be replaced by women, to respect the principle of parity. Applying quotas does take something away from men...

Laure wrote: "I think no one talked about "firing men" here. The example mentioned a company board; aren't these positions of a few-years term, members of a board needing to be reelected after some time? This is..."

Jasmine talk about "Replacing privileged male staff and leaders".

I think when she talk about "male staff", she means all men of the staff but I might be wrong.

I'm agree with her but only if it's done smoothly to let time to those men to find another income source.

The good question would be what means should we use to replace these men in a clever way ?

Fair enough. Not firing. But replacing.

Board: Absolutely the Board should be compromised of the individuals that reflect the world they live in.

But I disagree if that means every board needs to have tokens to look more PC. Boards were created to help the business organization grow.

In my former world of non-profit, I once worked in a inter-religious organization. Our board, at the time, was tokenized. We had members of the Bahai faith, Jewish traditions, Muslim, Buddhist, Christian- Catholic, Christian -Baptist, etc. But we didn't have the skills necessary to run anything. We had all spiritual leaders and no business leaders. No one had any knowledge about HR or accounting let alone the primary function of a non-profit board which was fundraising. And it almost ruined us.

We had to redesign our needs and ended up without something as neat and tidy and by the numbers. We still had gender demographics down, we still did our best to make sure we brought religious backgrounds in mind during the vetting process. But it wasn't the primary goal.

And the same is true for professional boards. Don't bring someone on who can't do the work. The impetus is on the staff and search firm to make sure that demographic is brought into the process and weighed heavily in the search process. But it should not be the make or break point.