This comes across as a sexist rant.

The males you describe in general terms are in most cases brought up by women.

So quite who are you blaming for your postion?

I'm a male. I don't claim to be feminist because I accept that I'm sexist but I do endeavour to have discussions to further enlighten myself as to the ways in which I'm sexist so make of that what you will. While the phrasing of this by and large felt like it was directed at someone in particular rather than addressing the broader issue (or perhaps it was more that because it was broad it felt contextually detached?), I did agree and comprehend a lot of it. I did, however, take issue with:

"Make sure the male to female ratio of speakers, facilitators, participants or chairs is always 50/50."

Short of very rare occasions where a coincidence occurs I find it hard to imagine the situations where an exact same number of men and women have an exactly equal amount of things they each want to say. I don't have a problem if more women talk than men, I don't have a problem if more men talk than women. I have a problem with the implication that we should therefore be silencing people because they have a penis, or rounding people up and making them say something because they're women. An obsession with cultivating a forced numerical equality of outward action in this fashion is bizarre and not true equality. What needs to be encouraged is a broader addressing of the power paradigms rather than a disingenuous attempt to create the facade of equality.

I agree with a lot of your principals it kind of reads like if I disagreed or had a debate about these issues I would be labelled a Chauvinist. I wouldn't call myself a feminist, I'm a socialist and feminism, gender equality and the removal of socialised roles and gender stereotypes is key to my politics. I have never experienced the issues you highlight within activist organisations although I'm sure they exist but to a far lesser extent than in wider society. If anything I find it difficult to encourage female activists to get involved and as a result we have a disproportionate number of debates surrounding issues that effect women in order to redress that. This also often results in positive discrimination in terms of speakers and organisational positions in order to give better female representation.

I was also a bit confused by the dating questionnaire on your website (was it serious or a joke or trying to highlight something?). As basically it looks like feminists would only be happy to date someone who absolutely agreed with everything they agreed with.

I'm not trolling btw I just havn't experienced the behaviour you describe within activism personally.

As someone who opposes all forms of discrimination, I found this text discriminatory and dismissive of males who may also suffer at the hands of abusers, (some of whom may happen to be female)! Feel free to treat the replies as indignant males responding to something they don't like, but I actually found this both regressive and inaccurate, and like it had been written from inside a cosy bubble.

Unfortunately, in your naivety, you're not asking for equality but much more than that.You've conveniently ignored that men are also oppressed by this society, and it's social system, and thus that their behaviour is a product of that environment. If you ignore this then you won't ever progress beyond complaining and denigrating those whom don't meet with your exacting, and often unrealistic, standards. Having not suffered patriarchy, how can a man ever understand the issues women face? Yet you harshly criticise those who at least try to learn some feminist theory, which is utterly counter-productive!

Until you realise that oppression affects everyone, of every colour, gender, race and ability, then you're destined to keep make the same flawed mistakes that the oppressors who've angered and oppressed you have made then you are destined to repeat their mistakes...and their biggest mistake was to lecture from inside a bubble, and assume that only their opinions have any value. I'm sure there are many men who fit the description of this text, but by writing in the assumption that all men fit this description you alienate potential supporters who now see you as irrational and unreasonable.

The fact of the matter is that people should be given the platform based on their abilities, not on sexually discriminatory policies which are supposed to improve "inclusiveness". Why shouldn't all the speakers on the platform be female? It should have nothing to do with gender, race, or physical/mental competence and everything to do with suitability for a given role, any other policy is discriminatory and exposes the flawed logic in this text.

Just because someone is female doesn't mean they can't be sexist, and unfortunately the text in this essay is exactly that. It's almost like saying that just because someone is from an ethnic minority means they can't be racist, it's utterly absurd and the authors ought to also do some critical thinking of their own.

Thank you to everyone who has read and commented so far. These are exactly the kind of response we anticipated.

The argument that we are sexist is a logical fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) which, in the context of patriarchy, is frankly ridiculous.

The letter is both a response to specific individuals and systematic oppression.

Women AND men brought up the men we are writing to; how interesting that you are trying to blame women for men's oppression of women.

Thanks again for displaying the exact type of behaviour we are addressing (instead of listening and self-criticising)

Thanks for writing this - was really helpful to read something that's sets this stuff out clearly. Also helps me to understand why there are so few women in many groups I've been part of!

Ohwow, i wish i could just claim it's a logical fallacy when people told me i was wrong, it must be so easy for you, huh?


Also, i don't know what bubble you live in but I and a lot of other normal, working class people grew up being raised by just a mother (a fucking hard working one at that.) or in the case of a lot of other people a father that was always at work and to tired/depressed to offer much in the way of social interaction when at home with the kids.

I take issue with both of these quotes:

"The argument that we are sexist is a logical fallacy (  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) which, in the context of patriarchy, is frankly ridiculous". AND "Women AND men brought up the men we are writing to; how interesting that you are trying to blame women for men's oppression of women."

What about men who are oppressed by other men? Do they have no value? Wouldn't that be sexist to suggest it doesn't exist? Or is that a logical fallacy too? Sorry but if that's what you're arguing then you're full of shit!

Equality calls for people to measured by their capacity to do something and not some inclusive balancing act based on the fact that we need X amount of males, females, ethnic minorities, the token person who's mobility is impaired etc.

Now, are you asking to be treated as equals or are you asking to be put up on pedestal by claiming that you are more equal because you are unable to be sexist? Because by saying that you are proving you are sexist in the same way that someone might say "I'm not racist but..."

I strongly disagree with what you are saying, I think you're expressing profound ignorance and for the record I'm a strong and intelligent female who strives against ALL forms of discrimination...including yours!!!!

"i wish i could just claim it's a logical fallacy when people told me i was wrong, it must be so easy for you, huh?"

Well, I'm assuming it's only easy because it accurately describes what that argument is.

"Also, i don't know what bubble you live in but I and a lot of other normal, working class people grew up being raised by just a mother (a fucking hard working one at that.) or in the case of a lot of other people a father that was always at work and to tired/depressed to offer much in the way of social interaction when at home with the kids."

You mean "working class men", since that's what you are and that' who you're speaking on behalf of. It seems completely ridiculous that you can address a letter asking men to stop being patronising by being patronising. It's ridiculous that you can address a letter asking men to stop trying to enforce some victim complex by playing the victim.

Anyway, what are you actually talking about? What are you trying to defend? Can you actually provide some coherent argument as to why you have reacted so negatively to this letter? I mean what exactly are you on about?

"Can you actually provide some coherent argument as to why you have reacted so negatively to this letter?"....Yes, it's blatantly sexist and discriminatory!!!

The men who've replied to this by denying the accusations and attacking the authors as sexist have no place calling themselves activists.

If you can't understand the issue here, despite it being clearly explained, I don't see how can understand issues of racism & white privilege, queerphobia & straight privilege, classism & class privilege, etc.

It's no wonder the activist scene is mostly made out of able bodied, straight, white, middle class men - everyone else is put off.

You refer to a specific set of circumstances,in a particular city, but then generalise it. If you want to discuss this rather than letting off steam then that is poor logic.

"You claim to be “leftist,” “revolutionary”, “conscious” and “feminist.” You may even claim to study the subject of female oppression both academically and interpersonally."

I don't particularly claim to be any of these things.

"Whether drunk, stoned or sober, in responding to us with aggression, you were acting out your social conditioning."

In the campaigning circles in which I move the women would soon tell me where to go if my "male activist ego" responded with aggression to them.

"mothers in some of the most densely populated places on the planet abort female foetuses and drown girl babies in milk."

That is horrible, but not something that happens in the UK. I treasure my niece and have never wished she was a nephew.

"where the majority of women who are murdered are killed by a current or former male partner, where one in three women will be beaten or raped by a man in her lifetime,"

That is horrible too. Are you suggesting that male activists in Nottingham murder, beat and rape female activists? I haven't murdered, beaten or raped anyone, whether they were male or female. Attack the people who murder, beat and rape others, don't adopt a simplistic approach of dividing the world into males and females. Things are a lot more complex than that.

"where the Eurocentric white male perspective and the hierarchy of power that values men over women and light skin over dark are normalised with a system of reward and punishment."

That could have been argued in the past, but I'm not sure it is true today.

"Perhaps you are furious because you are unaccustomed to intelligent women who are not afraid to point out when you are wrong."

Perhaps they are. I don't know the situation to which you are referring. However, iam used to intelligent women pointing out I'm wrong and am not infuriated by them.

"our experience of your and other males’ oppressive behaviour"

Are all males guilty of oppressive behaviour, or just some?

"we need activist spaces to be safe and respectful places in which women are treated as equals."

The ones I know are. I am sorry that yours are not.

"washing up, cooking, making tea, cleaning, tidying up, looking after children, doing the food shopping, providing emotional support, washing and drying clothes, emptying bins, sorting recycling, listening to people, caring for the sick, etc."

In the activist spaces I know of washing up tends to be done by me. Emptying bins and recycling is always done by me and another male. Making tea is done by everyone. I am not very good at providing emotional support, but people value me for doing practical things instead. Most of the other things don't apply to campaigning, though they do outside that.

I think you need to be far more specific when writing these kinds of letters. By attacking men who describe themselves as feminists to begin with, you immediately, potentially, alienate all men who may be reading it, whether they agree with you or not. Which ca create false and destructive divisions amongst groups. It's never nice to be broadly dismissed by a person due to a circumstance out of your control - whether you are male or female. Even if it has been done to you, that doesn't make it acceptable or helpful to do it to other people. It would be far more constructive to try to bridge the divisions between groups than to further entrench opinions. Letters like this can even create enemies of people who initially would be on your side. In addition, the derisive (sarcastic, even) tone you adopt (esp. in the outset of your letter) is extremely unhelpful to your cause.

You also seem to claim that any male is automatically subject to social conditioning that makes it impossible for us to understand your viewpoint (or, at it's extreme, impossible to NOT be sexist/oppressive). It is almost suggesting that you have a monopoly on oppression simply by virtue of being female. I'm sure there are many people in the world who would disagree with that view. You are constantly telling men to self-criticise yet dismiss any criticism of your own attitudes out of hand.

What annoys me more than anything is that you may very well be responding to a perfectly valid event, group, or individual, that caused you to write this letter, yet without knowledge or understanding of what it is you are writing about, it comes across as a generalised attack against men as a whole, which I find is a common criticism men with knee-jerk reactions to feminism make. They dismiss feminist viewpoints out of hand, because they perceive feminism to be dismissing all male viewpoints. Whether that is justified or not, it would be far more constructive to your cause to not come across as scornful male-bashers. And there *is* a tone of scorn in your letter, whether it was intended or not. Which will probably account for a number of fairly scornful replies.

I make these comments with the addendum that I *am* on your side, and strongly support feminism. I am not attempting to undermine you but prop up your viewpoints with constructive criticism. I am willing to take critique onboard if you are.

CJ

"As someone who opposes all forms of discrimination, I found this text discriminatory and dismissive of males who may also suffer at the hands of abusers, (some of whom may happen to be female)! Feel free to treat the replies as indignant males responding to something they don't like, but I actually found this both regressive and inaccurate, and like it had been written from inside a cosy bubble."

How? How exactly have you found it "discriminatory and dismissive of men"? Can you actually explain that? Is the letter directed towards "all men"? Of course it isn't and anyone with any sense can clearly see that.

This letter is directed at men who claim to be sexist, yet demonstrate sexist attitudes (such as yourself). This letter doesn't exist to try and make out that all men are evil misogynists, it attempts to articulate that because of social conditioning, men, even progressive men, often have tendencies which they think are perfectly normal (because they're normalised in society), but which continue to re-inforce gender oppression...

Such as this comment...

"Unfortunately, in your naivety, you're not asking for equality but much more than that."

This is just a prime example of what the letter is talking about. Women who respond to sexism they've experienced by challenging those sexist men are called "naive"...by a man.

"You've conveniently ignored that men are also oppressed by this society, and it's social system, and thus that their behaviour is a product of that environment."

Your confusing these issues of oppression. The fact is that women are systemmatically oppressed FOR being women. Class society is such that women have been systematically oppressed for economic, political and social reasons throughout history); with society regarding women as sub-human entities who are forced, often with violence, to submit to a specific role in which they had no choice in determining. Woman equals nurturer for example. We live in a sexist world and therefore are born into one. We are then instantly assigned a pre-determined and separate role we must play in society according to our sexual organs. From that point on, ‘society’ – be it in our families, our schools, universities, in the media, in film, in music and in our jobs – reinforces as “normal” and exclusively acceptable these separate roles. We learn that men have a dominant role and women are submissive. This understanding of society is completely normalised in every walk of life and so what do we expect? Of course men are going to share some of these views. Men do not experience this kind of oppression. While men may suffer oppression it is not because they are men.

So this letter is not about general "oppression", it's about the oppression of women. It's about a very specific kind of oppression that we, as men, know nothing about. We have no idea what it is like to be oppressed because of our gender.

"If you ignore this then you won't ever progress beyond complaining and denigrating those whom don't meet with your exacting, and often unrealistic, standards."

But they're not ignoring oppression that men might experience, they're just talking about THEIR oppression as women. Why is it so difficult for you to just disconnect your male arrogance for one minute and realise that it isn't some kind of competition. It's not a fucking who-gets-oppressed-the-most-athon. This about engaging with a certain kind of oppression and addressing the consequences of it.

And let's actually look at what those standards are, the "unrealistic standards" you're talking about: Being listened to. Not being patronised. Not being told their experiences are naive. Not being shouted at. Not having these experiences belittled and downgraded because of a mans "oppression".

Clearly they are standards which you find unrealistic, but unfortunately you're just going to have to deal with it.

"Having not suffered patriarchy, how can a man ever understand the issues women face? Yet you harshly criticise those who at least try to learn some feminist theory, which is utterly counter-productive!"

That's just a ridiculous thing to say. The point is that reading feminist theory isn't going to make you understand patriarchy or the issues women face. Why can you not except that as a man you have no idea how it is being a woman living in a society that oppresses you because of your gender? Is it so difficult for you to just accept that you don't know...

"Until you realise that oppression affects everyone, of every colour, gender, race and ability, then you're destined to keep make the same flawed mistakes that the oppressors who've angered and oppressed you have made then you are destined to repeat their mistakes...and their biggest mistake was to lecture from inside a bubble, and assume that only their opinions have any value."

Aside from the fact what you're saying does not relate to this letter AT ALL. You're once again re-inforcing this sexist notion that you are somehow privileged as a man in understanding oppression.

Look. The people who wrote the letter clearly "realise" that other oppression exists, that's never in question - since they aren't arguing that their oppression exists in exclusivity to any other kind of oppression. They are simply asking you, as a man, to realise THEIR oppression AS women. Do you understand? This isn't about dismissing other oppression or trying to claim that other oppression doesn't affect people - It is simply talking about ONE specific kind of oppression - gender oppression.

"I'm sure there are many men who fit the description of this text, but by writing in the assumption that all men fit this description you alienate potential supporters who now see you as irrational and unreasonable."

Where does it do that? Can you identify to us all where it does what you describe?

"The fact of the matter is that people should be given the platform based on their abilities, not on sexually discriminatory policies which are supposed to improve "inclusiveness". Why shouldn't all the speakers on the platform be female? It should have nothing to do with gender, race, or physical/mental competence and everything to do with suitability for a given role, any other policy is discriminatory and exposes the flawed logic in this text."

Yeah, it should have nothing to do with those things, but it does, because we live in a class society that has created oppression. I'm sorry, but your argument is completely unsophisticated and relies on a very superficial understanding of oppression (which is pretty typical of most men to be honest).

Nine times out of ten you will find a very limited amount of women on a platform, same with black people and gay people. That's because women aren't encouraged to be educated and they aren't encouraged to take leadership roles. Women have to fight to be heard, whereas men don't have to do that by virtue of them being men. That's why it's important that we actively encourage and fight for these things.

"Just because someone is female doesn't mean they can't be sexist"

Well, actually, yeah it does. Women don't have the power to discriminate or oppress men, since men largely rule the world. You might get women who say "I hate men" or try and create "all female" spaces, but this is a direct reaction against their own oppression.

Just like the letter. What you see as "discrimination" is actually women trying to stand up for themselves. What you see as "sexism" is actually what happens when an oppressed group of people try and fight back...Why not try and understand that?

"It's almost like saying that just because someone is from an ethnic minority means they can't be racist, it's utterly absurd and the authors ought to also do some critical thinking of their own. "

Based on the arguments that you've presented? You haven't addressed key and fundamental questions of oppression, such as the male power dynamic in society or the normalisation of gender roles. You don't even seem to have any kind of understanding of what any of that means, let alone actually be able to push this debate forward.

If we are going to address these issues, there has to be an education and an exchange of ideas for sure. But there is something that must happen before even that. So that we can have an education and an exchanges of ideas without aggression and patronisation, we men have to shut the fuck up and listen to what women are telling us. We have to learn humility. We have to learn that we don’t know what you’re talking about; that it’s OK to be wrong; that it’s OK to accept that we have these “residual understandings” and that we need to do something about them.

Your response is completely typical of a man and has done nothing but re-inforce the arguments in the letter. There is more depth and substance to this situation that you are able to grasp. Why not accept that and try and correct it?

But it's not "blatantly sexist and discriminatory!!!" and you've done a pretty piss poor job of trying to explain yourself. The reality of this is that you have no idea what you're talking about and have fundamentally failed to grasp the nature and the ideas in the letter.

That's YOUR problem and you need to address it if you want to truly stop being a sexist.

As a man I can say that I find this piece very accurate in terms of how men in general (not necessarily all of us, but most of us, to the extent that we've been socialised effectively into gender roles) tend to respond to feminist criticisms.

People seem to forget the asymmetry in visibility of different voices/experiences. We all know about this in other cases: think of the media and public awareness of police viewpoints, and how this relates to activist viewpoints. Most people, even if they aren't police, are familiar with the police viewpoint through overexposure. Everyone, activists included, has to be aware of how police think and act, because of the threat they pose if we aren't. The only people aware of the activist viewpoint are activists. All oppressive discourses seem at times to work this way – gender, “race”, North-South, rich-poor. The trick is recognising we don't know, and “unlearning privilege as loss” as it's known in postcolonial theory – recognising that our experience has been impoverished through the separation from the other which is an effect of our own privilege and visibility (along this particular line of oppression, not necessarily the other lines). I'm sure most of us realise we don't know what it's like to experience the world like an Amazonian, or a schizophrenic person, or a prisoner – unless we happen to be an Amazonian, a schizophrenic person, or an (ex-)prisoner, or unless we've spent a lot of time listening to people who are. It might be harder to recognise that this also applies to women's specific experiences of patriarchy, because we think we “know” women, we're around them all the time, they're our relatives and friends and comrades, and they seem to have more visibility. But the standard account of what women experience actually depicts women as men who happen to lack penises so to speak. Women don't say what they really think to (most) men out of fear or out of being silenced or having been conditioned not to, and the voices/images we see as the voices of women are most often male-oriented voices and images directed at our own gaze, or sanitised for it. Hence the importance of learning to listen, and hence why this is important for ALL men and not just a subset of outright abusers. Being a feminist or pro-feminist isn't just about taking a textbook set of anti-discrimination positions, or showing an external “political correctness” with no internal engagement, it's about being aware of and open to another set of voices which are usually silenced, realising these silenced voices are there and doing what we can to help them, tentatively, to emerge.

Regarding the critics:

1. Patriarchy is structural. Get away from thinking of “sexism” as individual prejudice. Patriarchy oppresses men as well as women, BUT overwhelmingly oppresses women by subordinating them to men. If a woman is “sexist”, this isn't patriarchy, so it's not the same problem.

2. The text is addressed to generic men, because a lot of men even in activism DO act like this, and it's meant to make these men think. The fact that some people are thinking, “this is directed at me and it's not fair!” instead of “I know men who are like this, but it's not aimed at me” (which might or might not be denial if you thought this), I think shows that it hit the target very well. If you don't do these things – responding to critique with aggression,

3. Affirmative action / positive discrimination is always controversial, but there are clear structural (NOT competence or personal preference) issues in why women don't participate more actively at meetings, and it isn't like the problem is a 60-40 imbalance, it's an imbalance where (say) 10% of speakers, panellists, chairs etc are women. I've experienced this in university classes too, i.e. men seem to have been conditioned to think they have to speak even if they have nothing to say, and women seem to be conditioned to think they should only speak if they're completely certain they have something important to say. It has real effects on the visibility of different voices and is self-reinforcing. If you really don't think that affirmative action is the way to solve it, let's see some other proposals for how to deal with it, or at least a sense that you recognise the issue.

"Your response is completely typical of a man and has done nothing but re-inforce the arguments in the letter"

Thanks for reading my comments, I'm actually a female as I've already mentioned! But, because you can't be bothered to read what I've already written, here it is again:

"I strongly disagree with what you are saying, I think you're expressing profound ignorance and for the record I'm a strong and intelligent female who strives against ALL forms of discrimination...including yours!!!! "

I would reply to the rest of your points but as they're all based on the flawed proposition that I'm a man, and the fact that it's clear you don't read my words anyway, I don't think I need to. Although I have to say that your response shows your sexism for what it is, because anyone who vigorously disagrees with you must be a man!

You've proved what I've already said, you're blinkered and reactionary discrimination has no place in an emancipatory movement and it is YOU who needs to do some "critical-thinking" about your own sexism!!!

"I strongly disagree with what you are saying, I think you're expressing profound ignorance and for the record I'm a strong and intelligent female who strives against ALL forms of discrimination...including yours!!!! "

What discrimination are you referring to?

"I would reply to the rest of your points but as they're all based on the flawed proposition that I'm a man"

I don't actually think that's the case. I think the points I've made are just as legitimate - irrespective of your gender. I mean, oppression is so insidious that many times those suffering the oppression often don't even accept it's happening.

It's the same in the gay community. Many gay people just don't even accept that they are being oppressed let alone actually address the issues of their oppression. The fact that you're a woman makes the things I've said even more pertinent, so dismissing them because I mis-read what you wrote seems pretty silly.

"and the fact that it's clear you don't read my words anyway, I don't think I need to. Although I have to say that your response shows your sexism for what it is, because anyone who vigorously disagrees with you must be a man!"

That's because the majority of the time those who proposition arguments like yours ARE men. That's just a fact. But in any case, I don't agree that you've "vigorously" disagreed with me. You've just said some stuff which isn't true and are now refusing to engage with me...That's pretty much the opposite of vigorous.

"You've proved what I've already said, you're blinkered and reactionary discrimination has no place in an emancipatory movement and it is YOU who needs to do some "critical-thinking" about your own sexism!!!"

But my "sexism" as you call it, only relates to the fact that I've identified in society that men normalise sexism and often can't realise their doing it. How is that sexist? I don't understand what you're talking about and you're refusing to actually substantiate what you're saying...

What is sexist about articulating the fact that men are conditioned and have sexist tendencies; even those who claim to be feminists. If you don't think that's a fact, then demonstrate how that's the case and perhaps I'd better understand what you mean by "sexist"?

What precisely is it that I need to think "critically" about?

Whilst I adore your article and the passion with which you write social conditioning and gender roles also disadvantage men.

Conditioned to believe that they should be masculine and they should reject their feminine attributes many men struggle with finding out who they are and instead are forced to live a life dictated to them by society - a society that also includes females.

I've heard many sistas claim they hate men who cry, they like men to be 'dominant' in a relationship etc etc.

It is not only men that have been conditioned to treat women according to a societal role.

'Women don't have the power to discriminate or oppress men'

That is unbelievable. I can understand the generalisations (theory) in the main text, and can agree that indeed there are some relevant points.

But, in many environments women do have the power to oppress men, and sometimes quite violently (if not often physically so) at one stage i was almost forced out of my house because i objected to the fact that i was the only one seemingly doing any housework about the place while others were out having fun, and playing at politics. Just raising the question of sharing more equally got me shot down and villified. It was a horrible experience, tantamount to abuse, as such, thoughtless, inconsiderate, arrogant behaviour is by no means the fiefdom of men.

to which i thought this was a good response

 http://shiftmag.co.uk/?p=319

"thoughtless, inconsiderate, arrogant behaviour " is not the same as oppression. Having a woman being rude to you is not the same as millennia old integrated and systematic brutalisation, violence and subjugation. Having a woman be rude to you is not at all the same as having a pre-determined and exclusive role forced on to you at birth and normalised in every aspect of society. Having a woman be rude to you is not at all the same as being patronised, dismissed, denigrated and hated for having a specific gender...

As awful as that experience was for you, it is not on any level comparable to the historical oppression of women. Come on.

"What precisely is it that I need to think "critically" about?"

I would start with your manners. You haven't even apologised, despite making aloof assumptions about my gender based on your own opinions, so I'd start by suggesting you consider your nettiquete and general arrogance for a start. It's customary to apologise when you make an error, rather than launching into a defensive tirade symptomatic of an over-privileged child, but I'll avoid being rude.

"What is sexist about articulating the fact that men are conditioned and have sexist tendencies; even those who claim to be feminists[?]"

There's nothing discriminatory about that, (and for the record I'd prefer to use the word "discriminatory" rather than because it's more relevant), but it is discriminatory to assume that people haven't (and can't) break out of their societal conditioning and from reading the essay, (I've reread it 3 times now), I couldn't help but get the impression that it was discriminatory towards men and suggests that men are naturally like that without considering the flaws that us females also have due to our own societal conditioning.

The letter may not be addressed to "all men" but the content suggests otherwise, and that even those men who have made the effort to inform themselves are still at fault because males can do no right. The title of the article is also "Letter to Male Activists", and whilst it addressed to "so-called Male Feminists" something I would describe as, (to quote one of your supporters), a "logical fallacy" the content repeatedly suggests that men are all Neanderthals who are victims of societal conditioning, without ever even considering that conditioning can be broken.

I also read the context of the letter in the same way as I've heard SO many feminist groups bang on about equality and how hard done by they are in a patriarchal society, in a way which allows them to dismiss men in such simplistic terms and blame them for all their problems. However my real issue is when it suggests that positive discrimination should be used in activist circles: "Make sure the male to female ratio of speakers, facilitators, participants or chairs is always 50/50", so if you really need me to answer your question of where the essay is discriminatory then it is right there in black and white!

As a female, I find "positive discrimination" to be utterly disempowering because I can never be sure whether I'm there for my own qualities or whether I'm there thanks to my genitalia. I speak at a lot of conferences, work in a lot of groups and communities and I'm there because of my own qualities and not because of my gender! I would also NEVER suggest that someone less capable be given a role because of their gender, and especially not when it relates to something as important as activism.

I know you're not reading what I write and I know that you haven't actually got the manners to address me or my opinions with any modicum of respect, so instead I'll just make it VERY clear that I vigorously oppose the discriminatory context of this essay and leave you to back bite and blame others for your own failings. In my opinion the essay is a thinly veiled attack on males in general, (discriminatory), it suggests that people are a product solely of their environment, (discriminatory and wrong), and it suggests that females aren't sufficiently capable that they need a hand-up, (discriminatory and insulting)!

I've said all I need to say and if you want to ask any other questions then I'm sure you'll find the answers in the comments you didn't read.

oppress men to get gender equality oppress bourgeoisie to get equality same shit different tags men go through shit as well and to take this stance ain't helping the problem its reinforcing gender stereotypes and makes this shit worse

structure is fucked yeah we know but what about all the single fathers that their wife fucked off or what about the men that do all this shit? This just sounds like some next rant men and women do the exact same shit to one another so this is just crazy

men oppress men
men oppress women
women oppress women
women oppress men

I often look at two comment news sites - Indymedia and the Guardian. I notice that articles about feminism and/or sexism seem to generate the most comments, and the most heat (i.e. disagreement).

I can't think of any occasion that anybody has suggested that their view has changed or altered at all. I'm starting to wonder if these forums for discussions actual facilitate discussion, or whether they just operate for people to make statements on their pre-existing views.

Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying that articles and comments like this shouldn't be online. But I am wondering is we need to create more space for genuine discussions about such an important and (evidence seems to suggest) controversial issue.

"I would start with your manners. You haven't even apologised, despite making aloof assumptions about my gender based on your own opinions, so I'd start by suggesting you consider your nettiquete and general arrogance for a start. It's customary to apologise when you make an error, rather than launching into a defensive tirade symptomatic of an over-privileged child, but I'll avoid being rude."

I apologise for my error. I also apologise if you think I have launched into a "defensive tirade". I don't agree that my comments were either defensive or a tirade, I am merely trying to understand your opinion. Nevertheless, if I have come across rude or dismissive, then I apologise unreservedly.

"but it is discriminatory to assume that people haven't (and can't) break out of their societal conditioning and from reading the essay, (I've reread it 3 times now), I couldn't help but get the impression that it was discriminatory towards men and suggests that men are naturally like that without considering the flaws that us females also have due to our own societal conditioning."

I don't really think the term "natural" is really useful, but the aim of class society is certainly to condition men to behave in these ways. Whether or not women are also conditioned and have "flaws" as a consequence is not really relevant, in my view. It doesn't alter the fact that men are conditioned to be sexists and that they often display that sexism - even in 'activist' circles. I mean, the issue still exists irrespective of the social conditioning of women.

"The letter may not be addressed to "all men" but the content suggests otherwise, and that even those men who have made the effort to inform themselves are still at fault because males can do no right."

What content? Can you provide some specific quotes?

"The title of the article is also "Letter to Male Activists", and whilst it addressed to "so-called Male Feminists" something I would describe as, (to quote one of your supporters), a "logical fallacy" the content repeatedly suggests that men are all Neanderthals who are victims of societal conditioning, without ever even considering that conditioning can be broken."

You have attributed sentiments to the letter that are completely an apparition. It's interesting that you use the word "Neanderthal". It seems to me that you already have some pre-conceived ideas about the kind of women who might write a letter like this.

I also think this view is slightly undermined by the fact that they list specific things that men can do to stop themselves from being sexists. I mean, they go into detail about how men can break their conditioning and move towards a more equitable state of affairs....So...

"I also read the context of the letter in the same way as I've heard SO many feminist groups bang on about equality and how hard done by they are in a patriarchal society, in a way which allows them to dismiss men in such simplistic terms and blame them for all their problems."

Ah, so you do have pre-conceived ideas about the kind of women who would write this letter? It seems that it would be far easier for you to dismiss the contents of this letter with such a pre-conception. But I'll reserve judgement.

I think it's clear that men are very much a significant cause of women's problems, since patriarchal society is a system that benefits men and they have therefore sought to maintain it, consciously and unconsciously. I don't know or claim to know all the problems that women face, but even with a rudimentary reflection, it is clear that a huge proportion of the social, political, economic and cultural problems facing women are as a direct consequence of patriarchal society, perpetrated by men (as well as those women who defend them).

"However my real issue is when it suggests that positive discrimination should be used in activist circles: "Make sure the male to female ratio of speakers, facilitators, participants or chairs is always 50/50", so if you really need me to answer your question of where the essay is discriminatory then it is right there in black and white!"

If we aren't to be conscious of these things and take steps to alter them, how then do you expect to address the gender imbalances that exist in society? Even with the destruction of class and our economic liberation, gender oppression isn't just going to disappear. We have to take active steps in our lives and in our organisations and activities to address issues that arise through patriarchal society and social conditioning. I don't see how we can truly move towards a world based on equality if we are going to reject or dismiss efforts to actually address these issues...

"As a female, I find "positive discrimination" to be utterly disempowering because I can never be sure whether I'm there for my own qualities or whether I'm there thanks to my genitalia. I speak at a lot of conferences, work in a lot of groups and communities and I'm there because of my own qualities and not because of my gender! I would also NEVER suggest that someone less capable be given a role because of their gender, and especially not when it relates to something as important as activism."

But what happens when women such as yourself are finding it increasingly difficult in male dominated groups and communities to actually get to a point where their qualities are being recognised? This shouldn't be about protecting men who might have "better" qualities, it's about ensuring that women with qualities are given the opportunities to be heard - and being conscientious about it. As a man, I don't see that as being discriminatory, I see it as being part and parcel of efforts to overcome a sexist society.

"know you're not reading what I write and I know that you haven't actually got the manners to address me or my opinions with any modicum of respect, so instead I'll just make it VERY clear that I vigorously oppose the discriminatory context of this essay and leave you to back bite and blame others for your own failings. In my opinion the essay is a thinly veiled attack on males in general, (discriminatory), it suggests that people are a product solely of their environment, (discriminatory and wrong), and it suggests that females aren't sufficiently capable that they need a hand-up, (discriminatory and insulting)!"

Your analysis and interpretation of this letter is just wrong. It's as plain and simple as that. This isn't a question of me being rude or not reading what you're writing (both things that I've not intentionally set out to do), it's just that you're not right about what you're saying. I'm not dismissing the fact that you have come to think these things, I am merely pointing out that you've got it wrong.

"oppress men to get gender equality oppress bourgeoisie to get equality same shit different tags men go through shit as well and to take this stance ain't helping the problem its reinforcing gender stereotypes and makes this shit worse"

No one has tried to claim that men don't experience oppression. They have merely said that men don't experience gender oppression, which is a fact. Men aren't oppressed because they are men.

"structure is fucked yeah we know but what about all the single fathers that their wife fucked off or what about the men that do all this shit? This just sounds like some next rant men and women do the exact same shit to one another so this is just crazy"

None of that relates to what is being discussed. Women leaving men with their children is not the same as the historical oppression of women. Yeah, it's not a very nice thing to do, but that's not the same as the brutal and violent experiences women face on a daily basis as a consequence of their subjugation.

"women oppress men"

In what way?

but i feel what these women are saying.
Patriarchy is just so insiduous, we have so far still to go to dismantle it in all our lives.
Women who raise the issues of sexism, how they experience it and how it manifests in certain communities, situations and groups, pretty much 99% of the time, face a massive backlash and the whole "yeah but, no but" thing starts.
Patriarchy is real, sexism is real, even those with the most well intentions can be sexist sometimes, women are sexist also (towards other women usually though)
Everytime women try to talk about the sexism they experience in activist and anarchist organising, they get the same sort of viscious response. why is that????

Thank you for pointing out what I for one have always been too scared to say,

The comments above do nothing but, ironically, further illustrate the neccessity of the letter,

When will men stop attacking and start listening?

To everyone who's left negative comments on this, or is thinking of doing so, let me just point a few things out for you:
1) You are not perfect. I hope we can agree on that much.
2) Because you are not perfect, it stands to reason that you have shit you need to work on.
3) Because you grew up in a patriarchal society, some of the shit you need to work on will involve your attitudes to gender. This is not an attack on you specifically - I'm sure the women who wrote this piece will have some internalised patriarchal ideas and attitudes they've not got rid of yet. I know I definitely do. (I'm ashamed to admit it, but when I first saw this article I was actually worried it might be specifically written about me, and had to check who the authors were to be sure I didn't know them. I'm not proud of that, but I can admit it, because hiding stuff doesn't help anyone.)
4) This piece isn't perfect either. There are things that can be justifiably criticised about it. But, by just paying attention to those aspects of it that can be easily criticised and dismissing it based on that, you guarantee that you will not learn anything from it. Instead of concentrating on the bits you think are weak, and using them as an excuse to dismiss the whole, why not pay attention to the parts you might learn something from? It's up to you, but there's no way that dismissing or attacking this article will help you become a more sorted person. Thinking carefully about what it's saying and how it might apply to you potentially might.

... and so are all the bullshit responses that 'men are oppressed too', or the ones picking apart the post word by word rather than trying to understand the ideas behind it.

It's possible for some people to discriminate against men, but discrimination against women is systematic, institutional, and inescapable from birth until death.

In my experience groups that preach solidarity and mutual aid don't offer any mutual aid to victims of sexism, and don't want to hear about issues like objectification, domestic violence or sexual assault. So why should I want to be in any group that isn't interested in any of the struggles I face in my day to day life?

Just two say four things,

Firstly, thank you to people who are trying to engage with the letter rather than attacking us and it, your support means so much to us. As the letter and the comments above show, we receive untold amounts of abuse merely for raising the issue of women's oppression. Your ability to recognise what we are trying to do and respond positively to it makes all pain caused by this abuse worthwhile.

Secondly, hope people don't mind but the comments we've found most interesting/stimulating/productive we have cut and pasted on the comment section on our blog. If you do mind let us and know and we'll remove them.

Thirdly, @ Polar Bear, while we are aware you are being sarcastic, in case one day you do wish to do something to address sexism in activist circles, we have made a list of 30 things you can do (these appear at the end of the letter but you don't seem to have read it) you can:
1) Listen to us when we speak,
2) listen to our criticisms,
3)listen to our experiences.
4) Stop defending sexism,
5)stop defending men,
6) stop defending yourself.
7) not interrupt women when they speak
8) stop immediately disagreeing with us.
9) actively challenge sexist gender roles
10) wash up,
11) cook
12) make tea
13)clean
14) tidy up,
15)look after children,
16) do the food shopping,
17) provide emotional support,
18) wash and dry clothes,
19)empty bins,
20)sort recycling,
21)listen to people,
22)care for the sick,
23) Take the minutes at meetings
24) Make sure the male to female ratio of speakers, facilitators, participants or chairs is always 50/50.
25)Type up e-mail lists
26)take over the other menial administrative tasks still disproportionately done by women.
27) Become aware of what the women around you are doing, feeling and experiencing and help and assist them however you can.
27) Notice the male-female dynamics in meetings, on demonstrations and in conversations and actively address this imbalance.
28) not attribute the hard work and ideas of the women in your organisation to men;
29)stop taking the women in your organisation for granted.
30) Incorporate an awareness of gender and feminism into your everyday life

Lastly, thanks again to everyone who has responded productively. To those who have called us lesbians, man haters etc, just so you know, we love men. We really do. And we have numerous male feminist friends. And they, along with all the women we know, have encouraged and supported us writing this letter as they are painfully aware of the power dynamics and structural inequalities to which we are referring, and resisting.

Sisters of Resistance

I've read and re-read this article and find it generally very offensive.

As an activist I believe that any given cause is much greater than those who fight on its behalf. You say, "Make sure the male to female ratio of speakers, facilitators, participants or chairs is always 50/50". I have never heard such a ridiculous thing in my entire life! Are you in any way aware of just how damaging this approach can be to the efficiency and overall well-being of a group? The cause is what is important, not the gender of those taking part!!!

If you have a group fighting for a cause and one segment of that group demonstrates particular skill and insight in articulating the primary issues, then that group speaks. If they are all men, then that movement is led by men, if they are all women, then that movement is led by women. Injecting an artificial demarcation of skillset along the lines of gender directly damages that group and breeds problems with confidence, harmony, deliberation, cohesion and ultimately group effectiveness. In fact it is so damaging, anybody advocating ideas like this, would lead me to think they had an agenda of disruption!!

What do you mean when you say "YOU will not win without US"?

I have capitalised these two words because for me, they jump right out of the page. For me, this statement could not be anymore hostile!

You also say

"This conditioning started the day you are born when the doctor declared “It’s a boy!” and continued, encouraged by parents, teachers, and the world around you, which told you that boys can run faster, jump higher and will eventually grow up to be smarter, bigger and better than girls."

No doubt true, or is it just a truism qualified by an environment that we all have been subject to? And what part of this truism are women able to reject, that men can't? I am a 43 year old man, and in a running contest, my 10 year old niece can beat me hands down! Am I supposed to be angry about this fact of life? I know that she knows she can beat me...and it makes her burst with pride, but that alone makes me happy! Would I feel different if I were running against a woman of 43?

No, is the extraordinarily simple answer to that ridiculous question.

And this

"But the acts of oppression you have perpetrated on the women around you do not support these claims. Being the compassionate sistas we are, we made the effort (and it takes A LOT of emotional and psychological effort) to talk with you about your sexist behaviour."

I'm sorry but this simply will not do. I am afraid to tell you that genuine compassion, like most of the great virtues, is effortless. It is when you are TRYING to be compassionate, that effort is required!

And this

"We are socialised into these roles of male and female, and they profoundly affect our sense of ourselves and how we interact with each other on a personal level."

I wish you well in successfully breaking free of the yoke of this socialised environment from which you have been produced. When you successfully emerge from its tyranny and onto the other side, you will meet only those who have also broken free of its chains. From that moment on, you will no longer see men and women, or the differences between them, but only human beings!

I don't want to give you the idea that I do not respect you as a woman, instead I want you to understand just how offensive this article is to those on the other side.

" In 100 domestic violence situations approximately 40 cases involve violence by women against men."
so men being abandoned with kids don't count as oppression but if a man does it is because of his dominate position within society?

same shit happens to us both if you want gender equality then why draw a gender divide
this society pushes on the same things as men as it does women like all those adverts and constant pics of buff men same shit happens under the system we are just a commodity. though not denying womans oppression but man is oppressed too and yes by women who can ridicule and undermine just the same way we can. this shit if anything is not liberating for women its the complete opposite

"I wish you well in successfully breaking free of the yoke of this socialised environment from which you have been produced. When you successfully emerge from its tyranny and onto the other side, you will meet only those who have also broken free of its chains. From that moment on, you will no longer see men and women, or the differences between them, but only human beings!

I don't want to give you the idea that I do not respect you as a woman, instead I want you to understand just how offensive this article is to those on the other side.
"

I think some of these posters are mistaking your passion for aggression, so they're automatically reciprocating that with their own passive defensive aggression. I'm sorry you have felt this way, you should challenge sexist attitudes and behavior and perhaps educate us as well. I do think however that men are prisoners of the patriarchal system as well, having to be "macho" and not being able to be in touch with our feelings, or we get "labelled" and then there is the whole other array of social norms and conventions we have to adhere to, we are under constant pressure to conform.

Anyway, the letter is good and you are clearly passionate about this issue, perhaps you should hold seminars with 50/50 gender and begin holding workshops around the issue? Or do something positive, you clearly know what the problems are - so do you plan on doing something about it? With that list you put forward, things are changing and quite a lot there is a "new man", that does all those things and its even becoming commonplace in households for men and women to share the housework, picking up of the kids etc. Because now women are more involved in the work aspect, you even get stay at home dads and stuff, I studied this in sociology for A level and while it wasn't exactly in-depth, I got a broad overview of the problems. Personally though, every time I've been present at our meetings, I've never witnessed this taking place, or maybe I'm just ignorant?

I’ve been following this story, read the comments and think it's probably time I add something.

I would first like to add that I also read your “Revolutionary Dating Assessment Form” and scored VERY highly, (I’m even vegan), but as I don’t believe that self-assessment is ever accurate I won’t put an exact percentage figure. I should also add that I’m in a relationship and have no interest in dating at this time, although I mention this so you get an idea of my character, (based on your values).

Now, to your open letter. I have sympathy with the context of the letter, but as an open-minded male I think there’s way too much denigration of men and I suspect that is based on your own social conditioning. For example suggesting that they do the washing-up, recycling etc, is offensive to many who are already living ad sharing the tasks equally with others, and these are the kind of statements which create barriers and make the whole message seem extreme and unreasonable.

I also think, as has been repeatedly stated in the Indymedia comments, that positive discrimination is disempowering and in something as important as social struggles there is simply no room for it. If 90% of those who are best equipped to organise/strategise/other “desirable” role are of one specific gender, (or even 100% of them for that matter), then that is what is required and nobody should suggest to dilute the competence levels to include males/females and create a gender balance, (unless it has some strategic value)!

Another important thing that has been massively overlooked is the “nature” of human beings, in favour of blaming the “nurture”, (i.e. the patriarchal system). It’s widely accepted that the nature/nurture balance is almost 50/50 and therefore your criticisms and attacks on the “nurture”, (social system), without even addressing the “nature” leaves big flaws in your argument.

In reality human beings are monkeys, (well apes to be precise, I’m just using “monkeys” as colloquialism), and whilst they’re highly intelligent monkeys who are able to grapple with the finer points of patriarchal social systems they are still monkeys in a biological sense, and no matter how much we try to deny it our instincts and the regressive parts of our limbic brain will always come back to remind us of it. So, whilst men and women try as hard as possible to be equal, there are still hormonal imbalances to contend with that can interrupt even the most tuned of minds.

I do recognise the discrimination you refer to, and to an extent I’m guilty of it myself, (as we all are), no matter how hard I try to limit it. And this isn’t just a product of my social conditioning because I was conditioned to consume animal products and I’ve broken with that, (even though society still expects me to), along with many other things I was also conditioned to believe/do.

One of the things that really stands out in your letter is that you suggest everyone is ruined by social conditioning, yet there doesn’t seem to be any recognition that even the strongest social conditioning can be laid to rest and the tone of the letter seems resigned to the fact that men can’t break out of their social conditioning because they’re ignorant of it and when they disagree that’s an example of their social conditioning again.

I would compare that approach to vegan outreach, (something I have experience of), where I’m approaching people who are conditioned to believe that animal products are necessary to live, (for example kids need to drink milk for strong bones and all that crap). Now, if I was to approach them with the idea that they could never change, that they were totally ignorant to the facts and denigrate them for their habits I would meet a lot of resistance and achieve very little, (and I’ve seen MANY vegans assume this approach, or at least assume it at the first sign of negativity), but it simply doesn’t work!

I noticed that same tone and approach in your letter and the subsequent comments. It’s difficult to describe as anything other than condescending, (although that is the wrong word), in the way that it ignores certain elements and suggests that anyone who disagrees only does so because they don’t get it. It reminds me of the angry vegan, they believe they’re right because non-human animals are dying and that’s all that matters!

Again, like with the angry vegan, your message is correct and the issue is very real but the manner in which it’s conveyed is wrong because it’s only inclusive of those who agree and ignores very important elements, (such as the hormonal differences), which count for a lot more than you have given them credit for, (mainly because you ignored their existence entirely and thus invalidated them).

I think what is missing in the letter, and follow up comments, is a bit of humility. Not because you are communicating with egos, but instead to show that egos are meaningless and only the message you are conveying is what matters. When you don’t offend people their barriers don’t rise and the message slips through unnoticed, so what I would suggest is using the “some” approach where you are able to make suggestions about “some men”, (even if you actually mean all men), because they are able to read and digest the message without feeling personally victimised…and of course they will read it with a clearer head, recognise some of the behaviours in themselves and try to address them in order not to be like “those men”, (even if they are exactly the people being referred to), because I’m sure most male activists have aspirations not to be sexist, classist, racist, (and hopefully one day they’ll also aspire not to be speciesist too).

I think I’ve said enough, but if you’re only going to take one bit of advice then make sure it’s using the “some” method and a bit of humility to criticise people because you will get far better results and it’s not about the ego but about the message being conveyed and understood. A quick Google gave me this, which is all useful advice and I’d suggest you all read and discuss it in order to formulate your open letters in a more “palatable” manner next time:  http://tinyurl.com/yece8rt

HOW is it offensive for men who already do those things? Then the letter is NOT APPLICABLE TO THEM! And they can shut up.

The men who are getting so angry and "offended" in the comments above are clearly the ones the letter is addressing and they need to stop, shut up and listen.

Pfffffffffff

This thread of comments is so depressing.

How many men are even willing to let these issues be RAISED let alone actually tackled?

I can not believe the aggression aimed at this letter.

Had NO idea indymedia was habouring such misogyny

it clearly says "among those who need it" at the begining of the letter. S why are all of these men getting so angry? If they "respect women" and are so "rational" then where does the anger come from? If you don't need it, if you are such perfect, flawless, never oppressive, wonderful, 100% feminist human beings, then why are you offended by a letter that clearly is not addressed to you?

Coz these women are calling you out for what you are? Coz you are desperate to maintain male privilege and will not stand by and see it challenged.

"so men being abandoned with kids don't count as oppression but if a man does it is because of his dominate position within society?"

Men being abandoned by children isn't oppression, just as women being abandoned by men isn't oppression. It may be the symptom of an oppressive society, but what you're talking about doesn't in any way relate to the kind of oppression that is being discussed in the letter.

I'll say it again: Throughout history, women have been systematically subjugated into a specific role that is submissive, dis-empowering and alienating, and that role is enforced through violence, brutality, patronisation, objectification and sexual violence. Women have been forced into a nurturing role - denied rights, denied a voice, denied political representation, denied freedom - by men - in order to maintain this role. The has happened BECAUSE they are women.

This experience has not happened to men. Men have not been subjugated to a submissive, dis-empowering and alienating gender role. They have been given all the rights they want, all the freedom and power they want and encouraged to lead. Men have been given power and privilege. Women have been given babies and cleaning.

Women were only given the full rights to vote in 1928. My Nan, who is still alive, was 5. Within the live time of being still living, have women being considered equal to men in the bourgeois political system...

"same shit happens to us both if you want gender equality then why draw a gender divide
this society pushes on the same things as men as it does women like all those adverts and constant pics of buff men same shit happens under the system we are just a commodity."

Right, but the difference between the objectification of men and the objectification of women is that men are regarded as big and strong and power leader figures, who are able to rule the world, be the head of the house hold etc, while women are regarded as being objects for sexual gratification; nurturers and people without independent thought. Do you see the difference?

If you compare the image of a strong man with free thought and the image of a weak woman who serves the man (roles that are encouraged in society), then you can see that there is an imbalance. It is THAT imbalance that this letter is talking about.

"though not denying womans oppression but man is oppressed too and yes by women who can ridicule and undermine just the same way we can."

But ridiculing and "undermining" (whatever that means) is not oppression, it's just rudeness. Oppression and rudeness are not the same thing.

"this shit if anything is not liberating for women its the complete opposite"

Do you honestly believe that you are in a position to tell women what is liberating for them? Do you not see how that confirms everything that the letter is talking about: That men even take for themselves, from women, the power to determine what constitutes female liberation.

"I don't want to give you the idea that I do not respect you as a woman, instead I want you to understand just how offensive this article is to those on the other side."

The only reason you find it offensive is because you don't understand it. I'm not trying to be a dick, that's just the situation. You can either accept that you don't understand and work hard to try and understand, or you can continue to perpetrate the unconscious sexism that permeates your thinking. It's up to you.

This is a harsh and unreasonable critique of men, and then it's defenders fall back on one or two statements to say that if it doesn't relate to you. I could write a similar article about women, with one or two caveats suggesting it doesn't apply to "all" women, but it would be removed from Indymedia for being "sexist". I'm not "angry" or "annoyed", nor am I being an ignorant male, but I find this letter patronising and it's defenders even more so!

The comments in defence of this letter are brazen straw man arguments, and it's obvious that those defending it aren't actually digesting the comments anymore than those attacking it are. I just wonder what the motivation is:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

These are not straw men. These are real lived experiences that we as women in the "activist" scene go through all day everyday.

"This is a harsh and unreasonable critique of men"

Why is it?

"and then it's defenders fall back on one or two statements to say that if it doesn't relate to you."

What?

"I could write a similar article about women, with one or two caveats suggesting it doesn't apply to "all" women, but it would be removed from Indymedia for being "sexist"."

But what would this article say? That some women are rude? That some women hate men? That some women objectify men? Or would it say that women don't wash up enough? That women don't take on minial administrative tasks? That women speak over men? That women don't appreciate the efforts of men? That women shout down to and dismiss the opinions of men? Seriously. I'm genuinely intrigued to know the specifics of this "similar article" you could write about women.

Could you please post what the specifics of that article would be. I think for the purposes of this discussion Indymedia would allow you the chance to express your opinion. What is it about women that you have so much to complain about?

"I'm not "angry" or "annoyed", nor am I being an ignorant male, but I find this letter patronising and it's defenders even more so! "

If you feel patronised, that's probably because your ego's been dented. The fact is that you and those attacking this letter on the basis of this "women oppress men too" nonsense, is because you've failed to really grapple with the ideas about gender oppression; the causes and consequences of forced gender roles etc. All you have done is react in a pretty typical [male] way.

"The comments in defence of this letter are brazen straw man arguments, and it's obvious that those defending it aren't actually digesting the comments anymore than those attacking it are."

What specific comments do you think haven't been addressed? If I am one of those culprits then by all means identify the specific opinions I've stated you consider to be a strawman argument. I will happily address it.

@ Sisters of Resistance

You speak for all the 'sisters' do you? You wish to remove one system and replace it with another because it suits you better, it seems you wish to tell those around you how to behave to gain your approval.
you you you you
Most societies are fashioned around the system you attack. These are highly sucessful, hence their continued existance. Just look at the evidence.
If you don't want to join in and work with people but divide them up on gender alone, no one is stopping you from setting up your oun activists network run by your rules.

Please do not come here telling those who do a good job most of the time how you want them to react in your presence.

And I have only one question to ask everyone who is attacking the sisters:

Do you honestly believe that the sexism they are describing does not exist? I'm sure you are all wonderful human beings, perfect activists who live in total Utopian activist circles in which not one woman has ever been the victim of anything remotely sexist ever, but can you agree that some activist men display the behaviour in the letter?

Can you not see how in not listening and attacking, YOU are displaying the behaviour outlined in the letter?

Oh and at oi in saying you are doing a great job, you are putting yourself above criticism. The EXACT atttitude addressed by the OP

Understanding: FAIL

Irony: WIN

"You wish to remove one system and replace it with another because it suits you better, it seems you wish to tell those around you how to behave to gain your approval."

What system are you talking about? A system where they are respected and appreciated?

God forbid that they would want this!

"Most societies are fashioned around the system you attack. These are highly sucessful, hence their continued existance. Just look at the evidence."

Patriarchy works, sure. For men. For women, it doesn't work at all.

"If you don't want to join in and work with people but divide them up on gender alone, no one is stopping you from setting up your oun activists network run by your rules."

You have completely and utterly failed at understanding the letter.

"Please do not come here telling those who do a good job most of the time how you want them to react in your presence."

Why not?

No - I know such behaviour takes place. Trouble is you're dealing with humans that even when they try fall far short of perfect.
My reaction is a result of yet again being attacked as a result of my gender. So when I fight back and you don't like what you read, tough. These generalised comments are only going to make the gulf that divides us all the greater.
To hell with PC. Everyone has faults, deal with them (but on an individual basis).

I agree with the vast majority of what the OP says. I'm male btw

Not sure about the 50/50 talking in meetings, I'm not someone who talks much in meetings there's not a lot I can do. Sure some men talk forever and ever facilitators should tell them to shut up mid sentence. But so many facilitators see their role as a passive one. Really only women can sort this out and all men can do is listen not interupt get offended (all been said already). while patriarchy benefits men its not just something men impose on women though, women (by and large) are active participants in their own oppression. I've never met a feminist whos broken out of her gender role and worked in manual labour for instance, saying that the vast majority of male activists have never done a stroke of work in their lives either, indolent fuckers.

I don't think anyone is saying sexism does not exist, nor that there aren't men within the activist scene who still hold sexist attitudes. Less still that we shouldn't challenge that sexism. The initial letter, however, goes far beyond that. I have reread it several times, and it is filled with vitriolic and hateful language, does nothing to help further feminist ideas, and, in fact, is likely to push people away from those ideas. First of all, some of the assumptions are outdated and frankly, dishonest.
Secondly, I'm very aware that I can only speak for my own experience within the 'activist' scene and the cities and countries where I have been involved, or have had close witness to how things happen. That said and out of the way, this 'list' of things that men should do to address sexism is ridiculous and paints a false reality.
Activities such as cooking, washing up, food shopping, emotional support, washing and drying clothes, etc, etc, are, in my experience, already quite equally divided within the scene. I have even been in places/centres/scenes where a lot of these tasks are done more-so by men. That, I also have no problem with.
Other comments, such as 'stop defending men', and 'stop defending yourself', well, are frankly immature and ridiculous. If a man is acting in a sexist manner, I feel no obligation to defend him, quite the opposite in fact. But nor am I going to condemn him, or refuse to defend him, simply because of his gender.
Other accusations - and blanket accusations toward male activists is 'exactly' how this letter reads, despite how some comments after the letter try to paint things - are equally dishonest. Speaking of dynamics in meetings, of men speaking over women, or dominating panels and so on, is simply not true. Yes, it happens, but I have been in just as many meetings where women have dominated, spoken over men, interrupted them, and so on. In fact, I have seen precisely this behaviour from women who are especially critical of seeing it in men.
These criticisms especially (of dynamics in meetings, and so on), while relevant some decades ago, I just don't think apply to the activist scene of today; note, I am saying nothing of wider society here, as that is an entirely different discussion for another time.

Be aware, that many male activists are open to challenging sexism, including their own privilege, and will be open to criticism if it is done in a constructive and comradely manner. This letter was hardly written in that way. If you use the analogy of sisters, then surely the male activists can be seen as your brothers, and you can approach them as such. Rather than setting them up as an 'other', something to challenge against, maybe work 'with' them, rather than 'against' them.
At the same time, I think those making these criticisms should apply those same standards to their own behaviour, and make sure they are not merely emulating and copying behaviour that they find disgusting in men. While women may lack a lot of the same social power as men, that doesn't excuse in turn inflicting that behaviour back upon those who are genuinely trying to help change this dynamic.

An OP about men being defensive, aggressive and not listening to women followed by 30 comments of men (mainly, aside from Joe and a few others) being defensive, aggressive and not listening to women!!!

Oh the irony! Would be blooming hilarious were in not for the fact that it is actually really really depressing. Two women per week are murdered by their partners in this country alone. Domestic violence and the physical, emotional and sexual abuse of women are the real side effects of the kinds of views expressed by the men above.

If the activist community can't challenge and reject sexism, can't even accept criticisms of sexism, then how are we ever going to move forward?

Assuming they are not all sexist trolls, men sat at home at their computers having been made unemployed for sexually harassing women at work, assuming for a minute that these are actually activist men, the kinds of men who should be posting on indymedia, I can only understand your vicious and totally ill informed comments by assuming you all think that as "anarchists" or "activists" you are immediately above criticism? Inherently perfect and incapable of oppressing anyone? Are you serious? For god sake listen to the women who wrote the letter.

YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM HERE

"it is filled with vitriolic and hateful language"

like what?

"some of the assumptions are outdated and frankly, dishonest."

such as?

"Other comments, such as 'stop defending men', and 'stop defending yourself', well, are frankly immature and ridiculous. If a man is acting in a sexist manner, I feel no obligation to defend him, quite the opposite in fact. But nor am I going to condemn him, or refuse to defend him, simply because of his gender"

No. By writing this you are defending the sexist men who the letter is addressed to. Can you not see that? The letter is attacking sexism, you ARE defending it. That is precisely what your letter is doing.

"despite how some comments after the letter try to paint things - are equally dishonest"

Why don't you believe anything these women say? Why do you think they are lying? I notice you don't think any of the men who have attacked them in the comments above are "dishonest"

"While women may lack a lot of the same social power as men, that doesn't excuse in turn inflicting that behaviour back upon those who are genuinely trying to help change this dynamic."

You really think the ONE LETTER can over turn thousands of years of oppression? One letter can have the effect of turning the tables? One letter can all of a sudden take on the power of the systematic violent and sexual abuse of women under patriarchy?

We only set up our blog a few weeks ago but have been discussing these issues through anarco-feminist women's meetings, other female spaces, and the "activist" scene in general for many years.

We are not a hoax. We are not a friendless man. We are two women, with many friends, who have had enough of the kind of mindless, totally blinded sexism referred to in the letter and demonstrated in the sixty comments above.

Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. Please stop telling everyone we are a hoax.

Thanks,

The letter starts off with the title of "Letter to Male Activists", not "some male activists" or anything specific. The language throughout is also, in fact, broad, and not specific. If it was a directed letter, it certainly wasn't written like one. Everything else flows from there; if you can't understand or see how the language used in the letter is unnecessarily aggressive, then nothing I say here will convince you otherwise.

I listed the assumptions that I see as outdated and dishonest in the post I originally made; primarily with the claim of what tasks within the activist scene are done predominantly by women, painting an image that men dominate meetings, speak over women, etc. The activist scene has done a fairly good job at addressing these things, in large due to earlier activism from feminists, to the point where such activities often happen as much from women as they do men. I think there should be a strong effort to stop any individual dominating meetings, talking over each other, and allow room for those not so confident or more shy to have chance to say their piece; however, that is really no longer a gender issue.

I am in no way defending sexism. That is an incredibly cheap shot. I made criticism with the tone and language of the letter, as well as some of the claims within. I think sexism should be challenged, I am open to the opinions of the women in my life to their take on sexism, even how it might manifest in my own behaviour or those of male friends/comrades, however I don't agree with painting a false image or reality; to make it clear, in this instance, I am talking of what I mentioned in the paragraph above, of division of work and other things within the scene.

I have never said I don't think that some of the men who attacked the original letter, in their comments, aren't dishonest. Don't try and errect me as some kind of straw man. I was responding, primarily, to the initial letter. If anything, I think a lot of the more knee-jerk reactions to the letter could have been avoided if the tone of the letter was different, and, in fact, we might be now having a very different, more productive, discourse.


Again, I never said I don't believe anything these women say. I don't know them. I do however see what they say in this letter, and I take issue with how they take their stance, the us/them language they use, and I disagree with some of the claims they make. I'll make it clear here as well, I'm taking issue with their use of us/them language in relation to the activist scene - a scene that is already trying to challenge these dynamics, and while it may not always get it right, can be approached in a much less hostile manner.
The claims they make that I disagree with, I have already listed above, and in my initial response, precisely because I have witnessed them to not be true. Again, to make clear, I'm talking of division of tasks/work, and of talking/dominating meetings.


Your last comment:

"You really think the ONE LETTER can over turn thousands of years of oppression? One letter can have the effect of turning the tables? One letter can all of a sudden take on the power of the systematic violent and sexual abuse of women under patriarchy? "

This, to be honest, quite baffles me. I never made any such claim.

I don't even know know what to say anymore, guess I should have expected but ho hum....

you said

"While women may lack a lot of the same social power as men, that doesn't excuse in turn inflicting that behaviour back upon those who are genuinely trying to help change this dynamic."

By saying "inflicting this behaviour back" you are inferring that the women who wrote this letter and those of us who support them are some how reversing patriarchy.

You are right we will never agree.

Some men are clearly not willing to start criticising themselves or to stand by while other men are criticised. Instead they prefer to attack the women who dare to speak up.

Why do you have to be so mean to us men? OK, so you are pissed off about the whole sexism thing, but don't you understand that when you get angry about sexism, your anger makes us men feel bad? And as men, our delicate feelings are the most important things in the whole universe. So if you want to talk about sexism you should be really NICE about it and try really really hard not to say anything that will make use sad.

Sincerely,

“Time and time again, you’ve shocked us with the level of violence and force, verbal and physical, that you employ against us in a desperate attempt to silence our challenge to your male activist egos.” This is about experiences with male activists in Nottingham. Verbal and physical, violence and force. In response to demands which include sharing the chores. If this is true, doesn't it need serious attention?

As a man this made an uncomfortable, but challenging read, which I feel is the right response. I can see the points you make are valid and cogent, much as I might squirm a little reading it. Which to me shows you have hit the nail on the head.
I haven't read all the many comments, but I'm disappointed by the reaction of the men, which certainly goes to prove what you are saying true. Rest assured, to some of us, the point got home.

I would also like to say that as a male activist/anarchist (and i would say feminist too) i initially found this quite an uncomfortable read, but having gone away and mulled it over i would argue that this was the whole point and i think this article is a really excellent springboard into a wider debate. Its never nice to think that as a self professed anarchist/communist/progressive activist that you could possibly be exhibiting the same behaviour as a fucked up, patriarchal society, but these roles can, and do reassert themselves amongst our movement and i think it would ultimately be a very cowardly thing to not acknowledge that. We need to be able to criticise these behaviours in our groups and in ourselves, because ultimately they have been very deeply engrained through a huge amount of social conditioning and do occasionally emerge, whether consciously or not. Dismantling patriarchy is a process, and just saying one day 'I am an anarchist' or 'I am a feminist' does not automatically remove those attitudes from us.

The other criticism seems to be 'i kind of agree but you shouldn't be so direct about saying it'. Why? Does it not seem that this attitude forms part of the patriarchal attitude towards women, that they cannot be direct and to the point, and instead have to make their points in deferential, roundabout ways. If a man wrote a direct, to the point, critical piece it would no doubt be praised as concise, articulate and passionate, but if a woman does it, its somehow rude. I can't help but be reminded of a section of the documentary 'live nude girls unite!' when a woman worker is told by her boss that if she wants to demand something she should not assert it, but ask for it 'coyly'.

thats amazing ....so powerful and so true...

thanks reii...

Men who describe themselves as feminists need to be conscious of their own sexism and the patriarchal structures they benefit from on a daily basis. Likewise white activists who perceive themselves as anti-racist will invariably still be racist and the need to be challenged and challenge themselves still exists. However, its a common response for white activists who are asked to look at their own race privilege to want to avoid their own culpability,deny, get angry, act defensively and divert onto issues of their own perceived prejudicial treatment they themselves equate wrongly with the historical and societal weight of racist oppression. As a privileged group however, accepting criticism is part of education about oppressive behaviours. Being made aware of injustices by those on the receiving end of oppression and therefore being able to look at yourself is part of being a male feminist. Otherwise its all just words isn't it? Those already dealing with everyday oppression are not responsible for, or just there to 'bridge the divisions' for you. That’s like asking for those oppressed to ease the path of those who oppress them and in this case thats something all men, whether sympathetic or not, need to deal with. Its up to those who already have privilege (though yes privilege can be complex issue, yet that doesn't negate the existence of sexism!) to work towards making both your own understanding, the community you are part of and the society a more acceptable one. And by the way its never just 'one event' such articles are relating to but whole lives, whole communities and societies which are infected by patriarchal injustices in the same way that racism works. Therefore, in my experience such articles are often written within the context of having such issues repeatedly brought up, not only after everyday dealings with such oppression on both a personal and societal level, but within radical/activist spaces which are often ignored and belittled. Therefore they are justifiably written with a certain frustration only those who have repeatedly banged their heads against a supposedly supportive and sympathetic brick wall may truly sympathise with....and perhaps you should try to understand that.

In the spirit of adding to the information available to the men and women who have been offended by the original post I would like to make a distinction between Feminism as bandied by the media and liberal political activism and Radical Feminism which is a more whole society, anti-oppression, ‘way of life’ kind of thing.

Liberal feminism wants equality. It wants men and women to engage equally in our consumer capitalist society, to have the right to be equally exploited by a system that wants them both to maximize its profits regardless of the fairness of that transaction. It wants women to be able to fight in armies as the equals of men, work long unpaid hours exploiting others in management, etc, you get the gist.

Radical feminism says, patriarchy oppresses everyone. Why would women want equality with the shit deal of men in the lower orders of the patriarchal hierarchy. High suicide rates amongst young men. More chance of dieing violently. Shorter life expectancy. Dislocation from a healthy emotional life. Economic forces that try and keep men from being nurturers, etc.

Radial feminists don’t say, ‘Yes BUT, what about all the shit women suffer at the hands of men. Fuck the men!’ Which has been the kind of thinking I’ve read in reverse from men up thread!

Radical feminism proposes that as we are all oppressed we all need liberating. Women need to take responsibility for their own liberation. That includes asking for solidarity and co-operation from their male allies. It is evident that the point made in the original post; that there are surprisingly many non allies amongst the radical political community, has more than a little truth from the content and tone of many of the responses to it.

Equally men need to take responsibility for their own liberation. Asking for solidarity in this process from feminist allies is admirable. Seeing the oppressive behaviour of other men as their responsibility is also helpful, much as many white people take responsibility for challenging racist behaviour even when it’s not their own. Making women responsible for making change amongst men is not going to get men what they need or liberate women who find themselves at the sharp end of patriarchy from men who are used as it’s tools.

Anyone seriously interested in engaging with the proposition that both men and women get a shit deal from patriarchy and that men need to be allies in the process of liberating women and leaders in the process of liberating themselves from patriarchal oppression might find ‘The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy’ by Allen G. Johnson, a valuable resource. Alternatively they could just listen more and be less defensive.

 http://www.sawtalniswa.com/2011/03/audre-lodre-quote-mining-and-rambles-from-an-editor-in-despair/

Read it and weep sisters.

Also, I agree with anything else the author might say about men in the future.

....that the piss taking and dumb criticisms here left by men are usually the work of scared hypocrites who on one hand say they're supportive to ending social injustice, yet are happy to continue it when it benefits them....

 http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/1076