katplanet:

attackedby27dogstoday:

diarrheaheartfailure:

otaku-sex-beast:

golden-notebook:

Male-identified allies SHOULD BE: 

• Assisting feminist leaders. 
• Supporting feminism and standing up for women in contentious, hostile spaces. (Not speaking for them - standing up for them.) 
• Listening more than speaking. 
• Asking, “How can I help?” 
• If in a role as a candidate for a graduate degree in gender studies, or a professor in W&GS, centering women in discussions - always, always, always - and going out of your way to include women speakers. 

Male-identified allies SHOULDN’T BE: 

• Acting as feminist leaders. 
• Speaking over women in contentious, hostile spaces, if not asked or requested to do so.
• Speaking more than listening.
• Asking, “But why don’t you accept me?” with the insinuation that support is conditional on being coddled. 
• If a candidate for a graduate degree in gender studies, or a professor in W&GS, centering every conversation on you and your penis, and what ~* other dudes *~ think about feminism. Being sure to talk over women at every turn, and focus class discussions on jizz facials.

In response to this, and the ensuing controversy.

Read:  ”Infighting with people, (with emphasis on people as in human beings) who agree with you is more important than working together to stop, for example, this.”

peels off own skin, turns it into a canvas, uses own blood to paint a portrait of myself screaming

ok y’all, let’s try this exercise: replace “male” with “white” and “women” with “black” and then tell me this post is racist, I dare you.

Now, I don’t agree with the part about male feminists not being active, even leaders, in the movement. I think they totally should, as long as they are still working for gender equity/equality and not pursuing a different agenda that is counter to the goals of the movement.

HOWEVER, this post is not saying male feminists shouldn’t speak up in the movement or be a part of it. The “stand up for, not speak for” thing is a common jargon-ish phrase in minority rights movements. It means that, because there has been a history of allies in movements sort of hijacking or co-opting the movements and trying to put words in the mouths of the people they’re supposedly trying to help and fight for, allies should be aware of their privileged position in society and use it to back up and fight for less privileged groups (with both words and actions) instead of speaking over or for the less-privileged groups, effectively drowning them out. Basically, it’s saying that a group has the right to define how they want their own needs, interests, etc. to be represented and fought for.

Example: I’m asexual. If one of my friends who I consider my ally understands the problems I face and the issues that are important to me, and consequently is able to stand up for my interests as I define them in a discussion in which I’m not present or do not feel comfortable participating, that is being an awesome ally. If, on the other hand, this friend either does not take the time to learn what I really need or doesn’t care, then participates in discussions attempting speak for me, they will not only be likely to misinform others and thus damage my credibility & ability to fight for what I want in the future, but they will also be putting words in my mouth & disrespecting my autonomy, effectively saying “I know what you need/want better than you do.” The same two scenarios could also happen in a space specifically dedicated to asexual people talking about their interests and needs. It’s just a matter of listening to & responding to the needs and interests of the group to whom you are an ally, instead of imposing your own ideas of what they need and want over their ideas.

I hope that clarifies some of the language the OP was using here. Although I don’t agree with 100% of what they are saying about men’s place in the feminist movement, some of their language was being misinterpreted to mean something worse than what they were actually saying.