By Women for Women

[crooksk]

In the beginning of the Mill reading, it is stated that this movement for gender equality was "not a pleading by male writers or orators," but is a movement "not merely for women, but by women." How would this movement have been different if it was started by men? Would it have been any different? Is it important for an oppressed group to be the catalyst of change rather that sitting around waiting for the privileged group to change themselves?

[godleskim]

In this time, I think if the movement had been started by a man, it wouldn't have been too different. I believe that it would have not been solely men, but rather men uniting with women to create a strong front for the movement of gender equality. Also, I don't believe men would have started the movement to begin with. It would be a rare occasion if it had been done. Women were on a lower societal level, belonging only to their sphere of domesticity, and it was the norm during that oppressive time. So rather than have a man challenge this for the sake of women, I believe it would have been more likely, and more important for women to produce and create this change for themselves. For an oppressor to give change to the oppressed, it is not a token of freedom or a movement towards equality, but rather it is the privileged allowing their objects to be slightly different. If this had been done, it would have still been a form of oppression.

[Katherine]

I agree with Mike. I doubt that a man would have started this movement, simply because it does go against the norms of society. Even if a man had started this change for equality, then either it would have been unsuccessful, because they were not fully aware of what the women's needs, wants or demands were, or they would have associated themselves with several women who were leaders in the community, to ensure they were fighting for the right things. A group must be willing to change their own situations, they must be willing to fight against all in order to receive their gains. The odds of an oppressor changing, in terms of becoming either less powerful, or swapping positions with those below them is very unlikely. Thus, I conclude that the oppressed group must be the "catalyst of change" in order to get anywhere.

[thomassonm]

If we apply Lukács writing to this, we can see that any system change initiated by the dominating class only seeks to hide the fact that their rule is constructed to give them their dominance. A movement for gender equality can only occur when the dominated gender becomes aware that it is not necessary for them to be dominated and system change can only occur if they fight together for themselves. In this situation we can think of the bourgeoisie as the male class, as even the lowest male in the public sphere finds domination over his female companion in the private sphere. Women would then be a proletariat, as their domination is systematically reinforced and purported to be necessary and right. It is essential for the oppressed group to catalyze the change that would free them from oppression. We can see examples of the necessity of self-liberation in movements such as the labor movement and the race equality movement, which both rage on today. While upper-class or dominating class members can serve as allies, financially and visibly, the change that is created by their assistance only serves to perpetuate the system in place, rather than reverse injustices. Movements that seek to end oppression would be very different and any social change would be very slow if led by the oppressor. In the words of Ezra Pound "a slave is someone who waits for someone to come and free [them]." We are truly oppressed if we believe anybody else could free us from our oppression. 

[xiey]

I also think it is far less doable for men to start the movement for gender equality. However, even if it were the men who started this movement, it would probably progress in a much lower speed,  and it may also toward a wrong direction. Given men was the superior group in the society at that time; there was already a existing social structure which was more advantageous for men. It is inevitable for them to compromise to those highly reachable benefits during the movement. Thus there will be a very subtle effect in terms of changing the social system. the movement itself would be less revolutionary. It is crucial for the oppressed group(women) to be the catalyst of change, not only because they can eliminate the ineffectiveness of the movement I talked above, but more importantly, they need a more accurate self-realization for themselves, as well as an objective understanding on their relationship with men and the whole society.

[beckk]

I definitely agree with most of the posts. Women needed to be the catalyst for change. But I also think we need to remember the importance of allieship. If men are unwilling to be allies in any capacity, then there will be no change from the movement. The oppressors need to have some sort of recognition so that they can change the social aspects of society. The catalyst for change starts with raising awareness, and that's where the oppressed group comes in.

[Katherine]

I know that it would make it significantly easier for the growth of the movement, but are men necessary as a source of aid? Do they have to be a part of the movement that is "for women, by women?"

[beckk]

When I say allyship, I don't mean aid. If men don't become allys, then they are not recognizing the need for the movement. It's so much as helping as it is supporting.

[Katherine]

But if the start of the movement is dependent upon men, isn't that defeating the purpose? Women aren't truly the catalyst if they have to "ask permission." I understand the want for support, but I don't think that men are necessary. Without them, I don't believe anything would be hindered.

[vegliam]

I definitely believe that a woman fighting for her own equality aids in the creation of a stronger argument and make their struggle hold more of a reason and purpose. Men fighting for gender equality would only reinforce the dominance of the male. Mill states that each individual must prove her capabilities by trial in order to become an equal. One could look at the women’s movement as a trial, and their involvement as a way of proving themselves. Having men fight the battle for them would lose any respect that could be built for women, and only highlight the idea that men are prevailing.

[marchellos]

If men started the movement, then it would not have the same impact as when women started it.  It is nice to see men fighting for women's rights, but it does not have the same force that it could have if women were at the roots of it. By the women starting the movement, they are taken more seriously because they organized and went through with their movement.   With what was said before, if men started it, it most likely would not have lasted.  Women know what their needs are and if men spoke for them then, they would not have been successful.  By having the oppressed group fight for what they want, it catches more individuals attention.  

[Mikki Franklin]

I agree with everybody that women have to be the ones to start the movement because they are the only ones that can truly break their own oppression. A man cannot do that for them, they can only do that for themselves. I also agree with everybody else when they say that the movement would most likely be unsuccessful because men do not know what it is really like to face this oppression and they are not the ones that can break it. Like I said earlier only women can really start the movement and break their own oppression.

[Aleasha Andrews]

I believe if men started this movement, there would be no movement. It relates back to Young’s idea of oppression verses domination. In order to break down this cycle, the oppressed group needs to know that they are being oppressed and they need to stand up for their rights in order to get any kind of equality. In addition, males in this case are the dominating group. they understand that they are dominating but they need to become aware of this domination in lines with the oppression woman are fighting for, but woman need to speak up before men can hear that they are being oppression in order to move past domination.