Should only feminists be allowed to debate feminism?

Question

I read this idea on myspace somewhere, not sure where anymore but I thought this sounded strange to me. What are all your thoughts?

Answer 1

I agree with 'The Mrs'. What good would it do to just stay in a group of five people and just sit around and talk to each other all day long reveling in how much you can all easily agree with one another. That doesn't really spread your message to the masses. If you can't stand up in a public forum, then you won't stand out. If you don't stand out you won't get recognition.

I suppose if you were anti-feminist then what I said above is exactly what you would want. What I described earlier would lend itself to the death of the movement before it gets started. Then again there are always a few who will join the cause no matter what.

Ultimately if feminists do not wish to debate, then they don't have to. This, however, is folly. As I said earlier this only leads to 'preaching to the choir' on the issues at stake. That is not the way to propagate a movement nor is it a way to get yourself recognized by the government.

Answer 2

Well that's silly. You may as well stay at home and talk to a mirror if that's the kind of debate you want.

Granted, it's good for a debate for people to have some common ground and assumptions or the argument never gets anywhere. The erstwhile show Cross Fire comes to mind.

However, it seems that in order to argue with someone, you take up some kind of contrary position.

Answer 3

When men do what you are describing, it is referred to as a 'circle jerk.'

But, of course, it is not that simple. Feminist opinions vary as widely as those of any other umbrella title. Any group has as much trouble agreeing among itself as two diametrically opposed factions.

But, if only men and maleness enthusiasts (I am leaving out the whole sex-supremest thing, as I am operating on the rose-colored assumption that we are discussing relatively rational, balanced people, on both counts) got together and decided what constitutes maleness and the celebration of it, would all the women just up and agree with them? Of course not. So, I think it is ridiculously petty and closed minded to think that a group looking only after their own goals should be able to discuss it and release the results on everyone else.

Now if only we could impose that on lobbyists...

Answer 4

Of course not!!!

This would not help spread knowledge and ideas through out the general population.

That's like saying only minorities can debate equal rights (which is really what feminism is about) or homosexuals can only debate gay marriage.

Not only would this keep knowledge and ideas from being spread it would also be fairly redundant in many cases as well.

Answer 5

That would not make for an interesting debate. However women understand the experience of oppression far more then men do and they come from a different viewpoint. It would be like a slave trying to make a master understand how they feel. Just like the majority of men who insist that women are not marginalized. It is from their viewpoint and they would certainly have no recognition of what a female must endure.

Answer 6

There are male feminists. Narrowing the debate would just keep chauvanistic assholes and people who don't know what they're talking about out. Anyone can be a feminist, so...I think maybe not ultimate exclusion, but encouragement to be quiet and learn about feminism would be good.

Answer 7

That is like saying only evolutionary biologist can debate evolutionary theory. I wish Micheal Behe and William Dembski thought that way.

Answer 8

Terrible idea. Our rapport and relationship with men is at the core of feminism--how can we work on that relationship if they're not sitting at the table?

Answer 9

Excluding anyone reduces the credibility of any discussion and any plans for change would be impossible to implement.

Answer 10

No. Antifeminists can be part of the debate as long as they know what they're talking about.