One of the more critical aspects of feminism, for me, is the personal narrative and as well, honesty, so I'll approach this post with as much honesty as possible.
I write this as a third-wave liberal feminist: sometimes, I am not overly comfortable with the presence of men within the feminist movement. In my journey within the movement, I've heard time and time again that a great deal of women are suspicious of the involvement of men within the movement, and it seems lately, I am beginning to feel the same way.
I walk carefully within feminism, often taking the time to ask myself which types of involvement are appopriate and which are not. My own answer isn't fitting for anyone else, but it seems there are places men do not belong in feminism. I am talking about safespace and the fact that, perhaps, the mere presence of men makes women so uncomfortable to the point where they won't voice their own opinions. One of the aspects of feminism is about allowing women to find their own voices in talking about their experiences - but the constant presence of men, it seems, will only thwart that effort.
At times, it seems I see a great deal of men being involved in issues of women sexuality. For me, it almost seems inappropriate because as men, we really have nothing to contribute when it comes to the personal sexual experiences of women - we've never lived their lives. Our part, then, is to deconstruct our own sexualities and our views of sex and how they shape our relationships with women. It's one thing to "listen to women," it's another thing to seem almost overly concerned - almost creepy - when it comes to women's sexuality.
Sure, feminism needs all the allies it can get, but the involvement of men seems to be a backlash for feminism sometimes. Men, especially those unaware of their own privilege and power, can do more harm than good for the movement.
As well, the whole chest-pounding "I-am-a-feminist" practice makes me uncomfortable. Men can be involved in feminism, and to a certain extend, even take leadership roles within it, but to expect a cookie for it, or even recognition, is wrong. For some, it seems feminism is a dating service or a pick-up line, rather than genuine altruism and the desire to make a difference.
After all, for men, it is much easier to stand in front of women telling them how committed he is about feminism, but it's much harder, and truly makes more of a difference, to tell a bunch of non-feminist men about the plights of women.
As I type this, there are a great deal of men making a difference within feminism - Jackson Katz, Robert Jensen being among them - and they rarely work with women. While I am all for inclusion and working together, it seems we almost need to work as two entities, while using one another as allies.
Think of it in terms of race: could a white person, no matter how genuine, know the lived experiences of black people? A white person's position isn't to tell black people they are oppressed or that he is feeling their pain, but rather, engaging white racists and talking to them about the injustices of racism.
I just framed this question of men's involvement within the feminist movement to my roommate with the race example, and he said, "I'd just think that white man is trying to get some votes."
Thoughts? Personal narratives? Suggestions?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Men's uncomfortable presence within feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13029
I like that there's men interested in feminism. Most men are completely unaware of their privilege, how women are treated, and every man that knows and can change his behaviours makes the world just a little bit easier for women.
I read a womanist blog a lot, and since I'm white I feel kind of out of place there. I can't really add any analysis to their posts, just say, you know "thanks for pointing this out" and then I try to change my behaviour in my own life. Like they'll say "this and this is racist.." and I"ll say "really! oops! gosh I should fix that." I think you can help with the movement just be challenging your own privileges, but you're limited to that. Taking a leadership role is probably inappropriate.
What blog? I want to add it to my RSS :)
womanist-musings.com :)
I talk to men about feminism all the time, and the only thing that ever upsets me is when I start to feel as though they are trying to invalidate my experiences; to tell me that the world is not as I perceive it but rather as they perceive it.
On the whole, I welcome men into feminism. I get a little twitchy when the topic at hand is rape, because I've been horrified to find otherwise very progressive, liberal men turn into rape apologists when the subject comes up. Other than that, I think we really need to engage with men and have them engage both with us and with other men. Any social movement needs as much support as it can get if we expect change - ignoring half the population for the sake of creating safe spaces or because we assume they just can't possibly understand isn't going to help our cause much.
Besides, I've always found your posts in particular to be very well thought out, and know other men who speak very knowledgably and eloquently in defense of feminism. Why make you guys feel uncomfortable when I've yet to see you do anything wrong?
Er, not that I don't think men should be allowed into discussions of rape, mind you. Just that I personally feel a little uncomfortable because I've seen one too many of those conversations go bad when I believed better of the people involved. I just reread my comment and realized that wasn't clear.
Negative reinforcement. Personally, I often feel awkward and uncertain discussing feminism around women unless I know them very well. That uncertainty comes from being bitten more than a few times for treading on feminist grounds. I have been the target [or witnessed other men as targets] of hostility for speaking about feminist issues. A couple examples really stick out in my mind:
A bunch of us [men and women] were hanging around at school, different groups of people having their own conversations in a common area. The group of people I was speaking with was mixed gender and a feminist issue came up and we started talking about it - one woman was surprised by the things myself and the other guy in our group had to say on the issue so I said "I'm a feminist". She smiled and everything was cool. A second later a woman from a nearby group burst into our group, bearing down on me red in the face and spittle flying under the force of her shouting at me, as loud as she could, about what a worthless low-life p.o.s. I was for defiling feminism by being a man and uttering the heresy: I'm a feminist.
Toronto Women's Bookstore. Great store, interesting and pertinent books and the staff are really helpful. The clients... the first time I walked into TWB there happened to be a reading which had wrapped up a few minutes earlier, the place was very crowded. I stepped in [the only man there], tried to walk around and browse the shelves plus find a particular book but every where I turned there was a wall of women openly scowling at me. Many wouldn't make room for me to walk past or reach a book. The message was clear: you're not welcome here. After five or ten minutes I gave up and left. It was a couple years before I returned and while it was less crowded I still got some dirty looks - though that time the scowlers were in the minority - and after a few more years the trend stopped completely.
But both of these events and by far most of my anti-male-feminist experiences are from the same time in life - secondary and post-secondary school. At that age many people are just starting to really think about important issues for the first time. We're figuring things out, piecing things together and making mistakes along the way. I've observed a somewhat common mistake new feminists make is the idea that only women can be feminists. I assume now that most of the people who thought this only thought so for a while and have since developed their good ideas into better ideas. Goddess knows, I didn't understand as much then as I do now and I've done and said things that I later realized weren't right. I like to think I've figured them out and changed accordingly. And I like to think other people have done the same - though I know that's not always true. Still, even though I know that people are less likely to freak out over it than they were 20 years ago, I've had enough bad experiences to make me hesitate before speaking about feminism in front of people I don't know well enough to know that I won't get my head bitten off for it.
Does this mesh with anyone else's experience or is it just me? Anyone else here observe a men-can't-be-feminists trend in their tweens?
PS - I'd like to reiterate: TWB is a fantastic store. I've never felt that hostility from the staff. I don't want to give a bad impression of the store.
"A second later a woman from a nearby group burst into our group, bearing down on me red in the face and spittle flying under the force of her shouting at me, as loud as she could, about what a worthless low-life p.o.s. I was for defiling feminism by being a man and uttering the heresy: I'm a feminist."
Wow! That's crazy! Sorry that happened to you. That definitely seems like something that could scare a person away from feminism.
That woman took it on her self to walk over to your group and verbaly assult you?
WOW what a disgusting scairy piec of shit, you should have called the police I would have. That's at least disorderly conduct especially if she's using profanity.
Call the cops? Chip, are you on crack? Most ladies would LAUGH at him if he ran to the cops and so would the police! If anything, most people would just ASSUME he deserved to get yelled at just because he was a guy and she was a girl.
Most people would just think that she "was probably treated badly by men in her past and that's why she's lashing out at him, the poor, poor dear."
Oh, but if a guy were to ever yell at a woman out in public the way this lunatic did, every man, woman, and child within earshot would be on their cell phones, ready to sic the Five-O on his sorry butt, if not preparing to beat on him themselves.
That's a strange perspective, given the names I've been called by males, in public, at protests and other similar events... Given the physical violence I've experienced at the hands of male police officers while peacefully protesting, and once while my hands were cuffed behind my back... Given the number of conservative males who have spit in my face and called me a cunt for expressing an opinion that differed from theirs...
But I'm sure you're right - only women can abuse men in our culture.
Rachel, I was speaking in a general sense. In a political protest, alot of niceties tend to be throw out the window, especially when you're dealing with rabid opponents. I'm was speaking about violence in general.
If a woman starts beating down on her man in, say, a restaurant without provocation, everybody will assume he had it coming. If the opposite were to happen, that guy would be getting screwed in the a$$ in jail by the end of the day.
This is why it's hard for men to come forward about their abusive girlfriends. Public opinion (and the COURTS) render him guilty until proven innocent.
And for the record, not all conservative males are like those jerkoffs who assaulted you. I hate bastards like that, they give the rest of us a bad name.
I empathize with your frustration at how people can try to invalidate your experience. Even on topics as simple as the weather certain people will use absolute language to describe their perception, which invariably creates conflict. Rather than laughing that one person feels cold at 22 degrees and another warm, they create a hostile environment where, since they experienced 22 degrees as cold and defined it as such, you are wrong to feel warm (yes, I am using Celsius degrees).
I would challenge you to reconsider why your progressive male friends seem to suddenly become regressive on one issue. Remember that it is a feminist issue that is not about equality - it is about protection - and those men likely really would like the incidences of rape go down, but perhaps disagree with you about how to go about doing it. Once it becomes a discussion about legal cases it's important to remember there are two sets of rights to be considered: those of the accuser/victim, and those of the accused. It is not quite a zero sum game, but this sort of a discussion is about how to balance those conflicting rights as opposed to how to bring one set of rights to the same level as another set.
Which brings me to where I stand on feminism: conflicted. On the one hand it is a fantastic vehicle for women to express their perception of the world and be heard. It offers a great lens to examine and criticize power structures, especially male hierarchies. It has made the world a better place by improving the lives of countless women. On the other hand there is very little structure to engage males' perspectives on issues and theory, which is limiting because it ascribes motives to male actions without listening to what men have to say. Furthermore, as seen the other day with the discussion on female rapists, feminism does not have the tools to create safe spaces where men can discuss important issues, which undermines the message of equality. In the end it fails to demonstrate in itself the very equality it tries to create in the world. I look at feminism as a whole, and it does not model the way I want power distributed in the world. It is a matriarchy. It is an important step to finding a way to share power between the sexes, but it cannot be a final theory because it does not reflect the world it seeks to create. This does not mean I believe we should abandon feminism - clearly it is vital for our progress, and will be required as advocacy and activist to ensure any future theory does not stray off course. I cannot call myself a feminist though, because through that lens my perspective will always be less than that of a woman's and there will always be a glass ceiling for me. Despite that it is a useful tool for me personally to understand how oppressed minority groups feel, and to see which women will use their power in feminism to oppress me and others (cis-trans oppression being one) and which will use it to listen to those with less power.
While men cannot testify to the experience of being a woman, their role in feminism and progression is crucial. Point blank, feminism without men is the state of women working against men for their own equality and, subsequently, against a more privileged, dominant group of challengers. Any "victory" would be someone's "defeat" -- that would just never work.
Secondly, it's so, so, SO imperative for all feminists, regardless of gender, to reiterate that feminism is for men and women alike! Women are not the only victims of patriarchy. Men and women both benefit from gender equality.
Feminism's goals can't happen if it's a single-gender effort.
A whole lot of male privilege is talking too much and liking the sounds of our own voices. A whole lot of patriarchy is telling women, both directly and subtly, to be quiet, distrust their own voices and tell men what they want to hear.
I'm not a perfect ally; none of us is. Women have plenty of reason to distrust male allies, and a reminder not to crowd women out of their talking space is always a good idea -- maybe one I need more, too.
I guess I think that talking about men in the feminist movement just kind of reconstitutes the gender dichotomy a little bit. I consider myself a postmodern/poststructuralist feminist. So much so that I'm wondering if I should even call myself a feminist. I'm interested in examining and dismantling gender as a social institution that creates the categories "man" and "woman". Being "man" is a privileged location, absolutely. But for me, feminism isn't just about "men" and "women". God, I hope that makes sense.
I think comparing it to race is kind of a false comparison. Well, maybe not. Race is socially constructed. It's all about how your body is read and how you are treated as an ethnic group. It's also mitigated by class and gender.
I'm kind of rambling. But I know a lot of men who are awesome feminists. They take these issues seriously and critically. I could go on, but I won't.
But I think your postmodern/poststructuralist critique applies to race and gender in a similar way. Gender is socially constructed as well, so in this sense they can be good analogues. I think that dismantling gender and race as a social category is the way to go. So in that sense anyone could be a feminist and anti-racist ally, but being aware of and sensitive to the privileged way you're contructed is of central importance.
This post kind of rubs me the wrong way. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit right off the bat that yes, I have led a life of white male privilege. But I categorically reject the notion that this excludes me from having a stake in, or a sincere appreciation for minority issues of any sort.
The OP cites the example of a white person's being involved in issues of race. While rejecting the notion of the "White-Man's-Burden" attitude is an absolute necessity, this doesn't mean we cannot engage ourselves in a constructive dialogue with people of color. In fact, even the notion that "white people should just talk to other white people" seems to smack painfully of racism. Take, for example, the case of John Brown, perhaps the most militant abolitionist in early American history.
I take my understanding from Judith Butler, one of my favorite scholars of any critical school. Like Race, in Butler's eyes Gender is a fantasy. We don't have social roles for men and women built around inherent aspects of their respective characters, but rather on the socially-constructed myth of Gender.
We have to look beyond these blanket labels of Man and Woman and interact with one another as individuals.
I also don't like the idea that men will inherently sexualize a discussion of sexuality. You don't have to have a vagina to talk honestly and truthfully about sexuality, or to know that rape is disgusting. Frankly, I find the notion that men will derive some "creepy" sexual pleasure from this border-line offensive. At the very least it feeds a nasty stereotype of the sex-crazed man unable to divorce his impulses from his thoughts and actions. This is exactly the sort of thing ALL feminists, male and female, should work to eradicate.
Feminism isn't just about "letting women 'have it all,'" as some assert. It's not a women-only movement with a bunch of pervy dudes hanging around in shadowy corners. It's about equality and individualism. It's about getting past the lies we tell ourselves to justify discrimination. ... We're not working for "separate but equal" here.
I agree, LukeCanJuggle. The type of thinking propagated by the OP in no small way offends me.
Marc, you're right that men must be conscious of how their voice is affecting others, with added import because of what our gender's voice has done so often in the past. However, this must be true in all arenas in life. Feminism is not some special enclave in which men must now become silent partners. Just as we should not rely on male (and in my case white) privilege when engaging in Feminist circles, so should we not when at work, with our families, with our friends, etc. -- all of which would hopefully not be separate from Feminism in any case.
What you're saying, such as: "Men can be involved in feminism, and to a certain [extent], even take leadership roles within it, but to expect a cookie for it, or even recognition, is wrong. For some, it seems feminism is a dating service or a pick-up line, rather than genuine altruism and the desire to make a difference," is not necessarily wrong and can be, emphatically, right on. To wit, expectation of recognition for anyone joining a social cause should bring the reasons for joining said cause in the first place.
But to immediately leap from one perspective/interpretation of what some men undoubtedly do to a broad description of and instruction to all male feminists is illogical and wrong. (Totally ripping off David Schuster's "that's hypocrisy and it's wrong" meme, which I love so much.)
Like ronin, I too want to put a little pressure on the "passing as feminist" line. It is certainly less desirable behavior than a male feminist who is willing to hold onto feminist ideals without any hope of recognition and possibly even at risk of great cost of self.
But if "it seems feminism is a dating service or a pick-up line" for some, we might ask: what does this mean, beneath our reflex judgment of hypocrisy? This means that there are men out there are not (...yet?) ready to endorse feminism at great cost to themselves, but who are nonetheless *attracted* to feminist women: women who are strong-willed and independent. Surely this isn't the worst thing in the world, all things considered. Men thus (perhaps superficially) engaged will still surely work to make their daughters, nieces, students, proteges a little more strong-willed and independent as well. It's a start.
Besides, although I think the "WIIFM" (what's in it for men?) instinct can be really pernicious, I honestly believe that feminism will make the world a better place for both men and women. And that's not only because of the material benefits it offers to women (at the expense of the unfair gains men make through patriarchy), but because it makes both men and women more exciting, beautiful people -- and I feel no shame in admitting that's attractive to me nor shame in hoping, hopefully soon, that it will be to more men, too.
(...and, um, can I buy you a drink? ~ha ha~)
I would be inclined to agree with you on most of these points. Another thing to note is that politics doesn't have to always be self interested or utilitarian. I'm a feminist, because feminism is an inevitable result of logically following my left libertarian principles. There are some other things for me to gain from it, of course, as I find women who embrace their individuality and intelligence vastly more pleasant than those stuck in traditional roles, but ultimately it boils down to being logically consistent.
I agree. Ladies, if you expect males to throw in with you in this movement and receive absolutely NO REWARD OR RECOGNITION WHATSOEVER while you take all the credit, you're gonna alienate a lot more men than you attract.
After all, a dog is more eager to please if you give him treats than if you ignore him.
Are you saying you are only interested in issues of justice or social equality when they benefit you directly? I think most people are better than dogs.
Dogs are mad loyal and loving.
Humans... not so much.
More like cats. Like if you where the size of a mouse your cat would eat you.
I think you're missing shinobivega's point. If I were a man commenting here, I think I'd be offended by his suggestion that men are like dogs in that you can't expect them to be your ally unless you're willing to give them treats. I don't view men that way at all.
It's called a metaphor, my dear.
Geez, why is everybody here so literal-minded?
If I were the size of a raccoon, my dog would chase me off the property.
Um, what sort of reward do you have in mind? I've done a great deal of activist work in areas that will never benefit me and don't involve any rewards that I'm aware of. I think the idea behind working for social justice is not that you're going to get some kind of reward out of it, but that the world will ultimately be a better place.
Okay, what kind of reward you say. How about respect? How about acceptance?
I mean, you expect us males to welcome you without question into our circles (whether it's sports or work or whatever it is we males are supposed to own), but when a male tries to get into one of YOURS (like this "feministing" movement) you ladies are all, "I don't trust him. He's probably fantasizing about raping me, the piece of s--t bastard!"
Why do you ladies always call it "empowerment" when a woman mistrusts a man (whether in a movement such as this or in ANY area of life), but "sexism" when a man mistrusts a woman?
It's a double standard.
If the whole chest-pounding "I-am-a-feminist" practice makes you uncomfortable, then I, as a man, am absolutely disgusted with it, especially when I see a man reclaiming the feminist label as if waiting to be rewarded with a cookie and a pat on the head by a woman. Even worse are these women who waste time that could be used to dealing with more important issues for trying to get their boyfriends, brothers, fathers, male friends and etc. to "self-identify" as feminists, as if defending gender equality, reproductive rights and fair use of language wasn't just good enough. Don't tell me what to call myself.
The only reason I'm not automatically trusting of men in feminism is because it can be SO FREAKING HARD to make them understand! More often than not I find them trying to convince me that my experiences are all in my head, that it's because I'm too angry and emotional to see the situation clearly. (Because, y'know, I don't live it EVERY DAMN DAY OF MY LIFE.) It's not even that they're bad people, it's just that I find the experience frustrating.
Maybe this outlook will change once I meet a man capable of listening and understanding--or, failing that, admitting that he doesn't understand. Hasn't happened yet, but I've heard the stories. I know they're out there! (Like Bigfoot...kidding! I'm kidding!)
That said, I do believe that we need to work together--but guys, it's not JUST listening--you have to be willing to check your own behavior and alter it according to your feminist/pro-feminist beliefs. (Depending on the term you prefer, obviously.)
Hugo Schwyzer has a brilliant post on this, titled 'Refusing entry to the good ol' boys club' that should be required reading for feminst/pro-feminist men.
However, one thing you shouldn't expect is automatic trust. These things take time.
Chai, thanks for mentioning Schwyzer's blog post! I looked it up and found it rather insightful.
The link (if anyone is curious) is:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2008/04/01/refusing-membership-in-the-boys-club-an-answer-to-derek-about-what-feminist-men-can-do/
And I think it's common for feminist men to feel "discouraged" when they are admitted into feminist circles only with some suspicion. But as you say, trust is earned, except when you're given it as a free handout (and we shouldn't expect such things as feminist men, should we?).
That's an awesome blog post.
Indeed, a very awesome post. One I think the OP would also benefit from reading instead of espousing the male-apologist line.
I'm not going to make an apologies for what I'm about to say:
I'm a bit offended.
I don't know if it's your personal background, of which you've previously discussed in other OPs, or something else, but I think you make some assumptions about what is or is not off limits for men in feminism.
Men belong in feminism in all places. Whether in discussions of sexuality, violent sexual assault or any other "women only" places you seem to suggest men shouldn't bother going. Without understanding, compassionate and feminist men who engage in dialogue with equally understanding, compassionate and feminist women, there's really no point. Feminism, as I understand it, is about how we all can move along together to become more unified and, almost conflictingly, more individual and comfortable with ourselves within that unified whole.
I don't see how any form of segregation can be healthy or productive -- you can't say genders are equal and then don't prove it with your actions.
I think it's effrontery to act otherwise.
There were several things that struck me about this post. Overall, I really appreciate this post, as well as the comments.
I know a few men in real life who describe themselves as feminists, but often tell me or other woman-bodied people that we are wrong, or insinuate that they have a better understanding of an experience or fact than we do. I admit, these chronic encounters have tainted me a bit. On one hand, I definitely want these men at the feminist table, and are glad that they are considering things that some men might never consider. But on the other hand, yeah, this "not only am I feminist, but I know more than you!" approach not really helpful ...to anyone.
I don't know if I agree with your suggestion to make completely separate camps though, even in realms of sexuality. I feel like a lack of discussion between feminists of all genders would not be productive. Absolutely, closed conversations to people who have experienced something specific or live certain lives can be safe and beneficial. In many cases, they are more than appropriate. But I feel like we need to keep the dialogue open.
That being said...your post mentioned the difficulty in expressing feminist ideas to non feminist men. I can only imagine. I'm curious: how do you do that? The culture I live in makes me feel like I have to keep my opinions to myself all the time, however I can see where men would also feel as though they cannot oppose an accepted idea.
I'm wondering, do male feminists have their own blog/in real life spaces, where they can strategize about everyday living? This might seem like a terrible blind spot, but just as women feminists might desire a "safe/closed space" where they might not have to explain things, are there spaces for men as well?
I know and am close to a feminist man, and he's the only feminist I actually know and can talk to about feminism and most feminist issues.
It kind of hurts knowing that all he can do is try to empathize, but he sure tries his hardest. We talk about rape, we talk about sexuality, we talk about the breast craze and how men are not programmed to think they are oh-so-amazing. We are able to talk about any subject, and he never tells me that I am wrong or looking too much into things or making something up. He may question something, but if he does, he still tries to see what I mean. He even tries to get his friends to realize that prejudice against women is everywhere.
And he is able to do that while reading feminist blogs, too. He bought Full Frontal Feminism, and we had a discussion about how it's aimed at women. He agreed that it was just something he'd have to be okay with, because everything in our culture that isn't specifically female-oriented is usually male oriented, even if it's supposed to be for men and women. He understood that part of realizing his privilege was to see what it was like to be on the other side.
So if my friend (best friend and SO, actually)exists, there have to be others like him. He went from decent-but-still-kinda-sexist guy to feminist man in less than a year. There are more as we have seen here on feministing, it's just a matter of finding them, or helping them to realize that yes, women are oppressed worse than they think. Of course, that doesn't mean we should try our hardest on every man we know. If he refuses to believe in the amount of time you're willing to educate, he's not worth it. Move to the next potential make feminist ally.
btw, I'm a fan of your posts, Marc. : )
"it seems feminism is a dating service or a pick-up line"
Haha, that will be Feministing's next expansion. First they made the Community blog, next they will make the Feministingmatch.com...
But on a serious note...
I only have an issue with feminist men on feminist blogs in ONE situation. And this is not something the vast majority of Feministing's feminist men are guilty of, but occasionally a new-comer will be guilty of.
It's when a man comes on a blog and tried to offer 'the unique male perspective' and expects all the feminists on the blog to immediately be impressed by his comments and to give more weight to his ideas and arguments than those other feminists who are just regular Woman Feminists. These are generally men who have not yet realized that lots of men are feminists, and they are no more special than anyone else.
exactly. Men absolutely belong in feminism. However, they do not always need to be leaders and do not always need to be speaking. There's a difference between belonging and leading
How do men act as rape apologists? We just hate being blamed for everything bad in society. If you ask me, man-hating has increased since the Second Wave, where it was a hot anger. Now it's a cold hatred, plus a ridiculous assertion of women's moral superiority over men.
"If I were a man, I would soundly object to the very implication that women are morally superior to men."
--Betty Friedan
"I believe that women have a capacity for compassion and understanding that a man structurally does not have. He's just not capable of it."
--Barbara Jordan
Yeah, we feel really uncomfortable calling ourselves feminists when it's considered sexist for a man to claim that women do need men or that men don't need women, yet it's not sexist for a woman to say that men need women, but women don't need men. The mantra "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle" isn't going to recruit the other half of the human race to your cause, because it tells us that not only are we unnecessary to you, we're also irrelevant.
Do you honestly think that all feminists believe women are morally superior to men? Do you know many real-life feminists? Have you had many open and honest conversations with them?
If you would prefer men not to be portrayed as a monolithic group, then don't pretend that women, or feminists, are a monolithic group.
"How do men act as rape apologists?"
SOME men act as rape apologists. Some other men have valid concerns about problems with the legal system with regard to rape. Some other men are activists against rape. Etc.
As an example of SOME men who act as rape apologists, I have known SOME men who say if a woman walks alone at night, it is her fault she gets raped. That is rape apology because it blames the victim.
"man-hating has increased since the Second Wave"
I assure you no one on Feministing hates men. But I have the feeling they might not appreciate you too much though.
I assure you no one on Feministing hates men.
I am not sure that is a claim that could be made with confidence. There are women here that have taken alot from the writings of Dworkin, and one specifically has taken to quoting her at length, and given the nature of her writings the popularity of those comments that your claim needs some evaluation.
Also, at almost any point in any discussion at feministing someone can post "Teh porrrr MENZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!" and have it voted as one of the most approved comments in the discussion.
There is a lot of self-admitted anger from many of the commentators on feministing... a serious question is at what point does that anger turn to hatred, and can they they admit it when it does.
Anger at inequality does not equal anger at men. You are misinterpreting other people's anger.
You are misinterpreting other people's anger.
I think you don't see the complexity of my original statement:
a serious question is at what point does that anger turn to hatred, and can they they admit it when it does.
The question then becomes at what point does anger at equality turn to a general sexism?
I think that one of the forces at play is the fact that people often don't want to feel bad about groups they belong too.
Many women will acknowlegde that they see alot of anger in other women, but they downplay or rationalize it.
Men do it with the actions of other men, women with women, religious people with religious people, the list goes on and on.
I also see that in your above response regarding "Teh porrrr MENZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!" comments that pop up. Often times I see that being used in the same way some men would say/write "STOOOPID BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!"
At its root, it represents the exact same sexist, belittling sentiment and its purpose is exactly the same, to ignore valid arguments and to vain-gloriously grand stage in front of an in-group.
Let me just make clear that in the context of this comment, I'm talking about feminists at Feministing or feminists like those at Feministing. I'm not talking about every feminist everywhere. If you want to expand the conversation past that, you'll have to give me examples so I'll know where you're coming from
"a serious question is at what point does that anger turn to hatred, and can they they admit it when it does."
I just don't see it as anger towards men, so I don't see how it can turn into hatred for men. I see it as anger towards inequality and anger towards institutions that perpetuate inequality. I can see that turning into hatred towards specific people who have a special role in perpetuating inequality (like Bill O'Reilly or other individual conservative political pundits) or hatred directed at certain groups of people who have a special hand in perpetuating inequality (pro-life politicians for example, MRAs for example (the I-hate-feminists-MRAs, not the legitimately-interested-in-men's-rights-MRAs)) (BTW I do not hate or condone hating any of these people). But I don't see where you are seeing hatred, or the possibility of anger turning into hatred, towards MEN as a group.
"I also see that in your above response regarding "Teh porrrr MENZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!" comments that pop up."
I was not saying that to defend women (or feminists as a whole), I was saying that to defend the certain individuals in the certain instances that I have seen that happen on Feministing. If you can point me to an example where "teh porr menz" response did not happen because of the explanation I gave in my earlier comment, point me to it.
"Often times I see that being used in the same way some men would say/write "STOOOPID BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!!""
Well first of all, porr is much less insulting than stoopid, and menz is much less insulting then bitch.
"At its root, it represents the exact same sexist, belittling sentiment and its purpose is exactly the same, to ignore valid arguments and to vain-gloriously grand stage in front of an in-group."
I disagree about what the 'sentiment' and 'purpose' of it is. Do you actually think that is it's purpose, or is your issue with it that you feel it is personally insulting regardless of intent? I won't argue that you shouldn't feel insulted by it if you simply find it offensive, I'll just apologize. But if you find it insulting because of the perceived intent behind it, then I'll stick by my argument that you are misinterpreting the intent behind it, and redirect you to my earlier comment.
"to vain-gloriously grand stage in front of an in-group."
I can see that in the context of feminist vs. feminist-hating-MRAs, but not in the context of feminists vs. men. So a feminist might be 'grand standing' in front of the in-group of feminists (and feminists not being limited to women), against the MRAs (not all of whom are men) or against those whom the feminist commenter reasonably or unreasonably mistakes for an MRA come to illegitimately derail the discussion.
do you have actual reasons to think that this will turn into hatred against men as a group, or are you just worried that it might possibly?
I definitely see behavior on feministing that I would call hateful... and as I have mentioned on other threads, hate occurs with surprising ease when you are dealing with any sort of ideology, which feminism is, in a lot of ways.
But just as with other ideologies, there are tools to justify and mitigate the hatred, or spin it in a good light.
Maybe I am a little to Yoda v. Darth Vader... But beware. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Lashing out in anger feels good, satsifying, empowering... and that is the seduction of it.
But it is a selfish act and a path to hatred.
"I definitely see behavior on feministing that I would call hateful... and as I have mentioned on other threads, hate occurs with surprising ease when you are dealing with any sort of ideology, which feminism is, in a lot of ways."
I won't try to debate that. I got into a lot of hateful debates with Feministing people during the election season. That still isn't hatred directed at men as a group though. :)
"a serious question is at what point does that anger turn to hatred, and can they they admit it when it does."
Adding to what I said about this above, do you have actual reasons to think that this will turn into hatred against men as a group, or are you just worried that it might possibly?
And the sarcastic "teh porr menz" comments are generally a response to people who try to derail a thread about how X hurts women, by saying, "but it hurts men to so stop complaining!" or "let's talk about me instead!" Yes, there are plenty of ways sexism, gender roles, etc hurt men too and luckily Feministing is set up so that members of the community can make an entire Post about that issue when the original thread is not about that issue. There is no need to derail another thread.
And don't misread my comment as saying that men shouldn't discuss how sexism hurts them too when it is appropriate to the thread.
It is the same when cisgender people derail a thread of transgender issues to talk about cisgender issues.
I added this example so that you would be less likely to interpret my previous comment as "I hate teh menz, got off my blawg!"
"I added this example so that you would be less likely to interpret my previous comment as "I hate teh menz, got off my blawg!"
Sorry, I added that example so PHIL would be less likely to interpret my last comment as such.
Phil got me all defensive and I wasn't paying attention to who I was responding.
Men don't necessarily need women. Not sexually, not economically, not for any reason does every man automatically need women. That's up to the individual man, his sexual choices, his reproductive choices, and his lifestyle choices. The same goes with women vis a vis men. Women don't necessarily need men.
As for your quote, here's what Gloria Steinem had to say about it:
"In your note on my new and happy marital partnership with David Bale, you credit me with the witticism 'A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.' In fact, Irina Dunn, a distinguished Australian educator, journalist and politician, coined the phrase back in 1970 when she was a student at the University of Sydney. She paraphrased the philosopher who said, 'Man needs God like fish needs a bicycle.' Dunn deserves credit for creating such a popular and durable spoof of the old idea that women need men more than vice versa."
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/414150.html
As a man I have found it rare for posts on Feministing to be anti-man (unless you are a right wing idiot who believes that things such as equal-pay is anti-man). I think most of the very diverse group of feminists who post here have insightful and interesting things to say that rarely descend into simple man bashing. Sure there are a minority of feminists who say nasty things about men, but all ideologies are broad coalitions with many opinions. Most feminists I know believe that it is essential to include likeminded men if feminist objectives are to be achieved. Should there be all women spaces? Yes, to my mind both sexes need some individual space within reason. But that does not preclude the inclusion of men in feminism as a whole.
As for a men needing women and visa versa I simply believe that most humans need companionship in life, be that man needing woman, woman needing man, woman needing woman, man needing man etc etc. It is merely a part of a deep human need for companionship, love and friendship that can be expressed in many different ways, either romantically or not.
Phil- many men act as rape apologists by putting the blame on the victim for rape. "Yeah, well she shouldn't have been wearing that outfit" or "she shouldn't have been walking outside alone at night, it's her fault" are common defenses of rape that people attempt to use.
With that being said, an overwhelming amount of women act as rape apologists as well. It's just something that people are conditioned to believe in our society.
I don't see many feminists trying to blame men for all of the bad things in society. By concentrating on womens' problems, we aren't necessarily being anti-man.
Pro-woman does not equal anti-man, in other words.
I haven't met any feminists that think that women are superior to men. I've met people who think that, who CALL themselves feminists, but they are most certainly NOT feminists.
As far as females not being able to voice their opinions in the presence of males ... I think of it as developing immunity as a child. If you keep a child in a vacuum it will never develop a health immune system. Why is it that we insist on a "safespace"? Is it to really protect females or to not let males in on the truth of being a woman? I am not suggesting this is done maliciously but I think it is ultimately counterproductive.
There should be some "Safe Space" in which females only speak with females, but don't get upset when males insist they need their own "Safe Space" to speak to other males. When males do this feminists often accuse them of exclusion. How is this fair?
Feminism MUST MUST MUST include males unless feminists plan to 1)all be homosexual or 2)rid the planet of males.
As for examples of awesome male feminists I would look up Guy Patching. :) He is virtually unknown but he is going to be my husband. Why? He is the first male whom I did not have to convince that feminism wasn't stupid. He also surprises me with pointing out my own ingrained, unthinking sexism and heteronormativity. He is in a word: Awesome. :D
I haven't ever had any real discourse beyond a handshake with another feminist man that I know of. I often proclaim myself a feminist and I do support the movement. I really don't think this gets me anywhere with women though you never ever know how someone will react when you say something like that. As a feminist man I am in the minority, I suspect that most of the women I meet and talk about feminism with are not themselves feminists and have little knowledge of the movement or interest in it. I do think that the last thing we need to do is go back to the same old bull shit mentality of segregating people out by their sex. I’m not just a man I’m a human being an individual person not a sex. I don’t see any need to bring my sex up at all. I think men can even be rape councilors if they have a gift for the job the same as a woman or an intersex person could be. To me it’s about the individual not an accident of birth that they are blameless for be it race, sex or any other trait. I’m not a “man” I’m a human being just like any one else.
Also I notice a lot of men saying things like they are guilty of this, and guilty of that and need to change.I think you are all being to hard on your selves. If you were really doing all this stuff wrong you wouldn’t be feminists in the first place. There are real sexist bigots out there, foaming at the mouth with smug contempt for women. Lets heap the condemnation on THEM
"I do think that the last thing we need to do is go back to the same old bull shit mentality of segregating people out by their sex. I’m not just a man I’m a human being an individual person not a sex. I don’t see any need to bring my sex up at all. I think men can even be rape councilors if they have a gift for the job the same as a woman or an intersex person could be. To me it’s about the individual not an accident of birth that they are blameless for be it race, sex or any other trait. I’m not a “man” I’m a human being just like any one else."
As harmful as it is to use difference as a way to judge and weigh people against each other, I think it's equally harmful to pretend that these differences don't exist (at least for now).
An anecdote: My campus lost it's mind when one of the groups I'm involved in asked for separate housing for people of color (who desired it). We were accused of turning back the clock, segregation, reverse racism, you can use your imagination. Why people of color might want a space just for themselves (and how this could improve the campus community) was incomprehensible to a lot of students.
But here's the thing (at least, from my point of view). Dialogues between different types of people are critical. But when you are a member of a marginalized group, you are asked to live in a dominant culture and interact in dialogues with people who do not share your experience *all the time.* I know that there are many well-intentioned people like yourself, Chip Bell. But still, it can be nice to just be with people with common experiences and identities sometimes. It makes everyday life a little less draining.
We should all be allies to each other, and keep dialogues open (and be brave about topics). But I don't think it hurts anyone to acknowledge that male-bodied feminists and woman-bodied feminists are coming at this from different angles. We could probably both benefit from closed conversations, or safe spaces.
Just to be clear: I'm not advocating for just closed spaces, or just open dialogues for all to participate in. I think that for the most effective discussions, we should have both.
ALCON:
Perhaps I should apologize for not having worded this better - I am not suggesting that men do not have a place in feminism or that they do not belong in any aspects of feminism; by the original post, I merely meant that, as men, we ought to be aware of our power and privilege and understand that there are certain women spaces we do not cross within feminism.
Whether a man is feminist or not, that fact is that patriarchy gives him power - a power in which, because of women's lived experience, presents a problem in helping women find their voices within certain aspects of feminism.
"I am not sexist," is simply not a good enough excuse for access to every aspect of feminism. By simply "being," a man is already exercising the power patriarchy affords him.
I bring up the original post for several reasons: recently, a male feminist I know was talking about rape, in the context that it "feels good," and thus women feel guilty. My response to him was that it didn't matter whether it "felt good," when it comes to stoping violence against women. Instead of men asking and focusing on whether or not women got sexual pleasure out of being raped, they should be working alongside men (and women) on how to actually prevent rape.
I brought this up because he argued that he belonged just as much as anyone else; but the problem here, for me, is that such a position isn’t indicative of a good ally.
Point is this: within feminist circles, when we talk about patriarchy, we’re not talking some abstract concept: we’re talking about me, we’re talking about my male feminist-and-none-feminist friends, we’re talking about all males, no matter how well-intentioned. The point, then, is that even feminist males need to look within themselves and ask how their (our actions) might be affecting women negatively.
For some feminist males, however, the excuse of “I am not sexist,” is simply enough for access to feminism - no matter how deeply personal the layer of feminism is. Feminism isn’t there to reinforce men’s perceptions that they are not sexist, nor is it there to save any of their guilt. Until women and men are on the same scale of equality, feminism should always be women-centered..
Second situation: in a local chapter of NOW to which I belong, there had risen a situation in which the presence of a certain male has made the women uncomfortable, because he espoused ideas that weren't very feminist, and because many suspect he is using feminist as a pick-up line (there's actually a great picture that says 'Feminism Is Not a Pick-Up Line," but that's neither here nor there).
I brought this up to his attention and his argument was that he belonged
Wow - sorry for the jumbled rambling - somehow, a few of my points got bunched in together. I'll do a better job in the next response.
All better now: I suppose my point is this.
Feminism belongs to women. While men have a stake in it, feminism still is and needs to remain women-centered. While the work that we male feminists do benefit both women and men, its purpose is to ensure that sexism ends, for the sake of women. Men matter, but in this case, ending sexism for women matter more. It's just a matter of priority, based on how unequal women and men are.
Here then is my point for the original post: feminist allies don't get to pick and choose what areas are appropriate for them to be in, when it comes to women's safespace. Women's safespace are for women - and if the presence of men prevents women from being empowered, then men obviously do not belong in such places.
As for my suggestion to look inward, I simply mean that men, no matter how pro-feminist they consider themselves, need to stop pretending that there isn't a single ounce of difference between us and women. We ARE the patriarchy, we have the power, and sometimes, giving up patriarchal power means not accessing women's space. The task for a feminist male, then, rather than arguing that he belongs in every woman's space, is to look at his own male power, and ask how it might serve women negatively and how is actions within feminist, might not empower, but rather, take away power from women.
That's the very least that's required of an ally - not just the feminist variety, but also in the LGBTQ community. I, as a straight man, don't get to decide to which extend the LGBTQ community is comfortable with my presence.
For the purpose of the discussion, allow me to use the word "androcentric" rather than patriarchy. In a feminist community, where women's lives and experiences are expected to be the focus, it is inappropriate for a man to be in all the spaces without deconstructing his own power and asking whether his presence will help women. By men seeing access as their rightful ownership, feminism is no longer women-centered, because the deciding factor isn't whether women are comfortable with male presence, but rather, whether or not such man has a right to be there. Hence "androcentrism," which I equate with patriarchy.
A male ally of the feminist community, if not sexist by thinking he belongs in every aspect of feminism, is at the very least self-centered, and as such, should check his own privilege.
Ahh, the theories of feminism!
Marc
And goddamn it, still misspellings and all.
I meant to say: "The task for a feminist male, then, rather than arguing that he belongs in every woman's space, is to look at his own male power, and ask how it might serve women negatively and how his actions within feminism, might not empower, but rather, take away power from women."
As well, it should be "extent."
I am VERY sorry, folks; I think I might need a nap.
For every woman who's made me feel unwelcome as a feminist, I've met ten who literally say, "welcome." It helps that I'm getting older, and it really is true that you come to care less about what other people think as you age. As long as their is a need for feminism, I will call myself a feminist.
I agree that it's important for feminist men to listen more than they talk, but I actually think it's important for all human beings to listen more than they talk. I know it's something I need to work on.
Mike -
I absolutely agree that we need to listen more than we talk - but the point is, we must care, as allies, about what women think, not because we want a certain image or out of a desire to be loved, but because if we didn't care, then we wouldn't be able to be allies to the best of our ability.
I recently heard a great anti-sexual-assault commercial that taught men to ask if they don't know what women are thinking, and then respecting their wishes. The same thing applies here - we must care what women feminists are thinking because if we don't care, we don't know, and if we don't know, we enter feminism the way WE see fit rather than the way women (for whom feminism was made) see fit. That's not being a very good ally.
Marc -- excellent post.
I have read all the responses that you've made and do agree with the point you're making about feminism being woman-centered.
What happens when the leadership presence of a man in the movement makes a feminist woman uncomfortable enough to dissassociate herself from feminist circles because he "needs to be everywhere?"
Though an extreme case, I guess, I speak from personal experience. My sexual assailant is so involved in feminist woman circles that I think twice about attending events about women's - err, MY - empowerment. How would I show up to a speak out when he's going to be the rape counselor?
Like you said, "Feminism isn’t there to reinforce men’s perceptions that they are not sexist, nor is it there to save any of their guilt."
If he truly wanted to help, he WOULD work with men and stop terrorizing the WOMAN he hurt.
The issues that we deal with in feminism are very real and have very real players. I think feminists forget that sometimes. The Second Wave taught us that the personal is political. Anytime we become too far-detached from the real world and start being all-inclusive all the time in the name of theory and individual personalities that fall somewhere random along the gender spectrum (although I definitely understand that people aren't conveniently packaged "men" or "women"), I say feminism becomes impractical, and in this unfortunate case, for the women it's supposed to empower.
Thanks so much for your post.
This can definitely be a sensitive issue. When a man approaches me or another woman and claims to be a feminist/pro-feminist/anti-sexist/etc., my knee-jerk reaction is skepticism. This is a result of such encounters usually being about the man lecturing to prove how enlightened he is, or (more frequently) a strategy to get the woman's guard down-- "Don't worry about being objectified or used, just go along with it! You can trust me because I RESPECT YOU!"
However, these experiences haven't led me to write off the importance of male cooperation. Some people (of all genders: I've known women who claim to be radical feminists just because they thought it was "edgy") do think they deserve praise for being involved, but others are engaged because they truly believe in equality and want to change themselves and the world. We can't let a few bad apples spoil the bunch!
Don't worry about being objectified or used, just go along with it! You can trust me because I RESPECT YOU!
Sorry, just had to comment on how much I love that line. It's kind of an unintentional warning sign, no?
I know that a lot of men are afraid to identify themselves as feminists purely because they are afraid of the label. However, the concern that men don't belong in our movement is contributing to inequality itself. Anyone should be allowed to contribute to the cause, as long as their hearts are in the right place. There is definitely a difference between a man who calls himself a feminist and one who actually contributes to the cause, but this goes for women, too...not just men. There are always going to be people that are part of a movement just because it seems like the "trendy" thing to do, and don't necessarily contribute to the cause. The 3rd wave of feminism needs dedicated men to support our issues, after all, they are the ones with the privilege and leverage that we need.
You write, "One of the aspects of feminism is about allowing women to find their own voices in talking about their experiences - but the constant presence of men, it seems, will only thwart that effort."
While this may be true that feminism is about women finding their own voices, I don't think feminism will ever (or should ever) get to the point where men will dominate the movement. This is a movement started by women, for women, but we need both genders support to win the battle.
I very much feel that men have a stake in feminism, but like Marc, I would not be comfortable in a non-committee-based leadership role.
Personally, my stake is in gender roles: I am boxed in by my gender, in that I am supposed to be some hypermasculine muscle-bound athlete person. That's a vast oversimplification, but that's sort of the gist of it. Of course the equivalent issue is far more severe for women, of glass cielings and flat-out sexism, but it's not totally alien to me.
However, there is so much in feminism, and it is a viewpoint that I continually find enlightening and insightful, even as it rightly points out that I benefit from white male privilege.
As far as the feminist vs pro-feminist man debate, I wholeheartedly prefer the term feminist. I feel it is an ultimate irony to divide a movement based on gender equality (among other things) along gender lines.
I think what is confusing is the ground shifts. Is feminism a lifestyle that ,as a bell hooks and the 'this is what a feminist looks like' ads say, is beneficial to men as well as women or is it a womens political movement which may or may not have male allies in a limited fashion. Maybe both. I think you live your life by a certain standard whatever you choose to call it. And I agree don't expect a cookie for it.
hmm. Some of these comments have left me feeling disheartened. I am a male and I am a feminist. I do understand where most of these points are being made. Like some men will say, I'm a good guy, I'm a feminist and may not act like one. But those people shouldn't hurt the men that are truly actors of feminism. I wear the shirt "This is what a feminist looks like" proudly around campus. People call me a feminist as a derogatory term all the time and I reply with "thanks for the complement." I started an organization on campus when I was 19 about ending violence against women, specifically rape and do not forget 9% of survivors of rape are male (DOJ 2001). Rape is a man's issue! We HAVE to be in the topic. Rape will never go away without female, male, and all sexes working together as a community, a sisterhood, brotherhood, a family. I speak up about my feminist beliefs and get crap al the time. I have not been raped so I will never act or claim I know what it is like. I know my place there unless I experience it one day. However, I do feel like I have as much right in the feminist movement. After all, I have known too many survivors of violence. The ones I love are getting hurt. Sorry for ranting. I get what your saying but I feel like the same can be directed to anyone. I have had conversations with woman who have blamed women for being assaulted due to what they wore or if they were drinking. Also...check out the definition of feminism (I use the one on the feminist majority shirts)... there is no word of female or women in it.
Well I hope you don't get too disheartened. I for one am always glad when a man self identifies as feminist.
I think people are misunderstanding Marc's point, which he clarified in previous comments. I guess I'll just offer my personal opinion on the matter.
I am a woman and a survivor of sexual assault, and when I was in college, I attended meetings of the campus women's organization in hopes of meeting a group of like-minded people who could lend me support. For the most part, this was true. But at one meeting, which was supposed to sort of serve as a "what is feminism?" open forum for people (especially men) who didn't know much about it, I became a bit disheartened. One of the males in the organization, after several speakers helped to define feminism as an all-inclusive and all-important affiliation, felt it necessary to raise his hand and tell us, "well, I'm not a feminist because I don't like to label myself, etc." This kind of attitude really bothers me. I cannot force a male or a female one way or another to self-identify as a feminist, but the fact that he was a member of the women's organization in the first place but was basically telling us, "I think that your choice to identify yourself as a feminist is wrong/arbitrary/restrictive," is troubling.
Consequently, I never felt comfortable discussing my past sexual assault in that space. It's something I still never, ever talk about. Do I believe that men are a key component in all aspects of feminism? Absolutely. Am I thrilled to meet self-identify male feminists? Of course. But I agree with Marc. Part of the problem with male privilege is that it allows women to feel that their voices should not be heard and that they are not even in control of their own experiences. As sad as it sounds (and I'm not saying this is necessarily the right choice) I refuse to discuss feminism with men. If I encounter sexism in my personal life or have a more general frustration, I don't bring it up if there are men present. Right now, my focus is more on supporting women who are struggling with sexism themselves and allying with self-identifying feminist men to try to inspire some network of support and positive change.
With that said, I feel that a group or discussion of something as deeply sensitive, traumatic and personal as sexual assault should not necessarily include men. I know that I, personally, am not at all comfortable bringing up my sexual assault at all, let alone if there is a male present. This is not to say that I think all men are rape apologists, but I've learned that people you think that you can trust might disappoint you.
Marc,
This is a great post. I think that many of the negative comments stem from a misunderstanding, rather than an actual disagreement. This post isn't necessarily aimed at any of the men posting here- if it doesn't apply to you personally, you shouldn't be offended. Perhaps many of the folks here have been lucky in meeting sincere pro-feminist men. I have, on the other hand, encountered more than one who fits your description. Many men, in my experience, adopt the label without really engaging in the theory. It's like- "Okay, I've recognized my privilege, so we're done, right?'' That kind of attitude has no place in feminism, period. And that attitude is not limited to men and feminism- the same thing can happen when white women try to engage in discussions about race, or when cisgendered women try to engage in discussions about trans issues. I really think this is something we should all keep in mind- we all have some level of privilege to check at the door of intersectional discussions.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that pro-feminist men need to work as a somewhat separate entity. Yes, of course there needs to be discussion between women and men regarding feminism- neither Marc nor myself are telling men to stay out of feminism. However, I do believe that each group should have somewhat separate goals (or perhaps 'separate tactics' is a better way of thinking of it). Women, as feminists, are dedicated to supporting women- whether it be supporting rape survivors, or fighting for economic equality. Men, in my opinion, should be focusing their energy on changing the opinions and actions of other men. Of course these goals can't be fully separated from one another, but it comes down to this: I don't need you to tell me what sexism is- I need you to tell your brother, your father, and all your male friends. Because you have male privilege, you're in a unique position to do this. We can pretend that those men would take my opinion just as seriously as yours, but I think we both know that's not true. Men have male privilege and that simply cannot be erased. Accordingly, men have a different place and different purpose within feminism. Men can and do have a place, but we can only make the best of men's presence by acknowledging that they have a different place within the movement.
Nice to be linked to from here.
Bit stunned by the suggestion that Robert Jensen never works with women; Gail Dines is his long-time collaborator; Michael Kimmel works with women all the time.
And there are men out there teaching women's studies, too (David Allen chairs the department at UW), and I've been doing it for fifteen years or so here in Pasadena. And I've noticed with each passing year or so, greater acceptance from feminist colleagues here and elsewhere of men as active participants (not leaders) in the feminist movement. Separatism seems pretty damn '70s to me.
Great discussion over all.
As a male I have been told that I have an obligation to be a feminist and that I have no right to be a feminist. I gravitate towards the former, but cannot ignore the latter and generally consider myself a feminist or at the very least pro-feminist/pro-woman (and, for that matter, pro-trans). I think there is a fine line between being a man who identifies as a feminist (which I wish more men did) and being a gynophilic woman-worshipper (such as John Stoltenberg, Derrick Jensen, et al.) All my (female or trans) feminist friends (seem to) welcome my presence and support and do not exhibit any spite or distrust towards my identifying as a feminist. Finally, I think that we need to be wary of the excessive academic language that we toss around. If we are always putting the prefix 'post' (which is and has become wholly devoid of meaning) and talking of 'deconstruction' (whatever this ridiculously hackneyed term means anymore), we are going to alienate potential allies rather than relate to them.
We need as many men who are feminists as we can get, just like we need as many whites who are against racism as we can get. How can it be wrong for more people to look beyond their own position of privilege and see the 'other' as equal, a human being who is worthy of respect?
This.
Men should be included in feminism as much as possible. To males reading this thread and perhaps unsure about their place in the movement: I welcome you. Please join us.
About men belittling and/or acting like they feel women's pain--that's an awareness issue. They may very well have the best of intentions. But the wise man steps back and says, "I can never fully share your pain/experiences, because I am not a woman. But it hurts me to know that women hurt, and I will do everything I can to help you stop this."
It's the same way I, as a white woman, can never fully share the experiences of women of color. Instead of pretending like I totally get it, which is a little offensive and cheapens their pain, I acknowledge their suffering, offer support, and help stand up to racism wherever I see it.
If feminism= moving to end sexist oppression and fighting for equality between the genders, than there is no reason that a man cannot call himself a feminist! Just because men have not been oppressed by patriarchy does not mean they don't have a stake in ending it.
If experience with oppression is necessary for being a feminist, than I, even though I'm a woman, can't call myself one. I've never experienced gender discrimination personally. Nobody has ever told me I can't do something because I'm a girl. The only sexist thing I've truly experienced is gender policing, which, honestly, I think men suffer from more.
If I'm not going to self-identify as a feminist, what are the alternatives? I wish we didn't have to label ourselves, but until gender-egalitarian becomes a widely-used term, male feminist is as good a label as any.
For me, identifying as a feminist is a matter of not wanting to be identified as the alternative: I am not a male chauvinist, I am not in favor of a patriarchal system that divides everyone based on gender, race, class, and sexual orientation, and I do not want to be identified with some of the sexist (or racist, or homophobic) elements of our society.
I agree with a post structuralist analysis of gender - though think it is problematic to entirely subscribe to this. While I believe our notions of gender are entirely socially constructed to ignore gender now is to ignore the way gender is used to enforce patriarchy.
I'm not at all against the presence of men within feminism - I think it's incredibly important and integral to the feminist movement. I just don't see why, if we're talking about labels, men can't just refer to themselves as 'pro-feminist'. Does it change the work they are doing or it's importance? Why is it so important for men to be able to use this title?
Some of the commenters here raise legitimate points but the abundance of white men shouting down other people and self righteously undermining the wishes of feminist women to have men not associate with the term - whilst still doing the work and being an ally - smacks of male privilege and the age old sense of entitlement men have over anything they wish to be or call themselves.
If you're only response to 'men as feminists' is to reiterate a few select stories of times when women have been mean to you then you need to really go think some more.
"the abundance of white men shouting down other people and self righteously undermining the wishes of feminist women to have men not associate with the term - whilst still doing the work and being an ally - smacks of male privilege and the age old sense of entitlement men have over anything they wish to be or call themselves."
You put your finger on exactly what was bothering me about some of the responses.
I think the best place for an ally (in any social justice movement) is *listening*. And then taking what they learn out into the world by advocating from their position of privilege to bring awareness to others in the same position of privilege. Feminist or pro-feminist men should listen to feminist women and then go talk to other men (insert white/Poc/cis/trans/etc. as appropriate).
Something I find curious is feminist and other activist are constantly saying that they get to decide what they spend their efforts on, which fights they choose, so forth and so on,and may get quite angry if one suggest a 'better' or more proper course of action.
But here these same activist are saying that men's activism is limited, and they are told the proper way to be active with the feminist cause.
It appears to be an inconsistency. Maybe one that you can validate to yourselves but it is an inconsistency none the less
There's a very large difference here.
In one case, a member of a marginalized group is deciding which of the many battles facing them they wish to engage with and how, and rightly resists other people trying to tell her/him what *should* be important.
In the other, members of a marginalized group are telling members of a privileged group how not to accidently hurt us with their privilege while trying to help us.
I agree with a post structuralist analysis of gender - though think it is problematic to entirely subscribe to this. While I believe our notions of gender are entirely socially constructed to ignore gender now is to ignore the way gender is used to enforce patriarchy.
But those who argue that gender is a social construct are not advocating that we ignore it, but that we deconstruct it. There's a huge difference.
I agree with a post structuralist analysis of gender - though think it is problematic to entirely subscribe to this. While I believe our notions of gender are entirely socially constructed to ignore gender now is to ignore the way gender is used to enforce patriarchy.
I'm not at all against the presence of men within feminism - I think it's incredibly important and integral to the feminist movement. I just don't see why, if we're talking about labels, men can't just refer to themselves as 'pro-feminist'. Does it change the work they are doing or its importance? Why is it so important for men to be able to use this title? Why is so much energy put into insisting they be able to?
Some of the commenters here raise legitimate points but the abundance of white men shouting down other people and self righteously undermining the wishes of feminist women to have men not associate with the term - whilst still doing the work and being an ally - smacks of male privilege and the age old sense of entitlement men have over anything they wish to be or call themselves.
If your only response to 'men as feminists' is to reiterate a few select stories of times when women have been mean to you then you need to really go think some more.
I have to admit that my first instinct to this post was to get defensive. I am a transman, but am also identified as both a man and a feminist, and I strongly feel that men can be feminists and have a place within feminism. The reason I identify as a "feminist" is because I feel to identify as anything else appears half-hearted to me. Like I am expressing my agreement but not my commitment.
At the same time letting go of the knee-jerk emotions that initially arise, I have to agree that there are a lot of times I feel a strong discomfort with men taking on the label of "feminist" and intruding on women's space. Men don't always (well, usually) recognize when we are attempting to use our own privilege, and that's true even when we are in a feminist context or even if you are like me and have a female history. I admittedly associate a lot of "male feminism" with men who are really just looking for ways to get around women's empowerment to further control women... like "male pro-choice" which is apparently just a way to get out of paying child support or trying to treat women's sexual choices as something that should be a "joint agreement." Ways of making things sound all gender-equal when really they aren't. I know those are more extreme examples than the original post was probably referring to, but they do establish I guess a framework for me that helps me notice smaller infractions so to speak.