Also, I cried at work AGAIN today. I think it's because my boss is nice and our weekly meetings are at 11, so I'm at a low ebb pre-lunch. So I moved the meetings to the afternoons.

I don't think the movement has every defined itself in that way

I don't think there is a "the movement". There are many movements.

Then you could say "I support a feminist movement that includes and welcomes men". I don't think the definition you're referring to is super common

Okay, I'm being really unclear. I'm talking about those people, to those people. I don't see why I'd have to define it to them. I'm saying I'm not a feminist like they're a feminist. I'm not talking about or to "most people". I specified the population intersection upthread, and it's them I'm still referring to, wondering if they exist, if there are people restrictively defining feminism yet objecting to people using that phrasing to except themselves from it.

The general population was never an issue. I'm only talking about the people I'm talking about.

I'm very confused. You're talking to someone who says "men can't be feminists" and you're saying "I disagree with your definition of feminism", what's wrong with then saying "I suport a feminist movement that includes men"? I mean, they aren't going to magically AGREE with you, but they should know where you stand.

If you want magic arguments to make someone agree with you, I can't help you there. Trying to consolidate feminism to one definition/movement is waaaaay beyond my scope.

thing is, there are all sorts of feminism: radical, womanism, conservative - so, as Fred Pete put out there, it is difficult to know what kind of feminism you are talking about when you say "men can't be feminist."

In a class I taught years ago, I mentioned that the concept of men being feminist is somewhat controversial. Because of the perspective of being an ally and not having the lived experience. Thing is, it can be difficult to fully experience the negative aspects of being a woman if one can be privileged whenever anyone chooses.

In this way the radical feminists (who focus on patriarchy as a system of power, not only women being equal to men) believe that men who are part of the patriarchy can't really be feminists.

This is my pithy summary. I hope it is understandable.

ita !, maybe the approach would be to talk about what you think feminism means. How would you define the word? And how are they defining it?

Often, it seems that the statement "I believe in equal rights for women, but I'm not a feminist" gets derided, but if you can't be a male feminist, it seems a perfectly cromulent thing to say, perhaps even if you're a woman. I'm wondering if there's an overlap in the people who'd attack that statement, and the people who'd attack the concept of male feminists.

Okay, I think this is the crux of what you're asking about, right? In my experience, I don't think there's a lot of overlap between the two groups, but I couldn't tell you there's none, either. Most people in the first group (people who'd deride that statement) would probably say that feminists *are* people who believe in equal rights for women, while most people in the second group (people who'd attack the concept of male feminists) are defining the term much more narrowly.

I'm not asking for any suggestions. I just wondered about the intersection between people who think men can't be feminists and the people who deride the I'm not a feminist but statement. Wondering what their justification was. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. Just pondering their existence.

Also wondering what the definition was of feminism without men. Which Le n has summed up nicely.

I think it's bullshit and reductive and counter productive, but I don't have a vote.

See, they would argue is isn't counterproductive, but claim yourself to be "anti-sexist."

The Sandford, FL police chief has stepped down.

The Sandford, FL police chief has stepped down.

Can he be sued for malpractice?