(I'd like to preface this by saying that I am not the kind of girl who ever goes on and on about her boyfriend!! but--)
I say this to my boyfriend when relevant--like recently, since I have stopped shaving my legs-- that I shouldn't have to be lucky (because men should be okay with this, or whatever women's issue we are talking about) but I am so lucky that he is the (feministy) way that he is... though I don't think he identifies as a feminist.

By which I mean, sure, all men (and people in general) should be feminists, but the truth is they aren't. So I am equally appreciative, elated, loving etc etc about any person who identifies as a feminist. And I think it is important to remember that a "woman" feminist can do work to forward our movement that other genders can't, and the SAME is true of "men" feminists.

I also agree (I think we agree..) that feminism has to be fight to free people of the gender binary. "Women" will only really be free from patriarchy when gender (and so sexuality) as a social construct die. Which means feminism is a stupid name for "anti-patriarchist." Which is what I am. But just cause I'm "feminism-plus" doesn't mean I'm not a feminist (for all those humanists who say they are H'ist not F'ist) cause I totally am.

I guess what I am trying to say is--- I LOVE THIS POST. a million snaps in your direction.

Gular, I read one of your old posts, "Oversensitive," and in it you said that an auction of men implied that men are inferior to women. I agree that the auction is problematic in it's objectification and valuation of humans, but it does not imply female superiority, simply because that is not possible to claim while being taken seriously. Reverse sexism, like reverse racism does not exist. Isms are systemic, and only plausible if they have any impact. No men were harmed in the production of the Date Auction. Matriarchy was neither created, expanded nor maintained. The employability and credibility of men were not assigned as functions of their appearance. My point is that we, men, have it pretty darn good. We have nothing to worry about except loss of privilege, and if you are a feminist, this should be embraced.

Feminism is the only space that women control, and that's a good thing. Feminism, and all civil rights movements need to be led by the group that they represent. Men make up half of society, but we do not need half or a quarter or any representation in the feminist movement. We need to support the opinions and decisions of feminists, because they know more about it than we do. Full stop.

Perhaps my perspective is informed by my lack of white and heterosexual privilege. I am a queer man of color; white people and heterosexuals are allies, but they are not fit to lead racial and sexual discourse.

Frankly, the male members of Feministing frequently post problematic comments. They are sometimes paternalistic and often narcissistic (what about teh menz?). Rarely do they provide insight.

I'm a man. Yes, "male feminists" are overrated.

THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR COMMENT POLICY.

I think the dialogue that is really going on here that's important is can we as feminists acknowledge that the gender binary, and gender expectations in general hurt everyone? I think it's a resounding yes.

We should not be surprised and pleased at the presence of male feminists than we should be at other people's feminist awakenings. Yet, as a woman, I often find myself challenged on the basis of my feminism when I talk about issues like lower expectations for fathers or the binaries that have been set up for men and women in interpersonal relationships.

As a movement, shouldn't we want everyone? I thought that the one moment that feminism will have succeeded will be when the word becomes an inherent part of being a human, when we all believe in gender equality, when sexism, misogynism, chauvinism, and sexual assault are considered unacceptable behavior by society as a whole? If it's just the women who believe this, we'll never attain our goal.

I find your post interesting, Gular, and to a certain extent I am inclined to agree that we should all be working together towards the same goal.

However, it is problematic to suggest that feminism's concern with the articulation of women's voices constitutes an obsession with "image."

As a (predominantly) heterosexual woman, I can declare myself an ally to the queer movement, but I cannot accuse queer activists of shutting me out if they don't wish to uphold my (straight) opinions as of equal weight to those of queer people who have experienced queer oppression.
Similarly, within feminism, the movement was originally created to articulate and battle against the oppression of women, and, while the movement has expanded (and this can only be a good thing) to include a discussion of intersectional oppression and the suppression of all minorities, it is the experiences of women that fuels the fight.

I am not, of course, arguing that there is no place for men in the movement, nor that their support and alliance is anything other than desirable (just as, I hope, you would not wish to shut me out of the queer movement for sleeping with someone of the opposite sex). I am, however suggesting that, despite our final aim of the deconstruction of the gender and sexuality binaries, the acknowledgement that 'woman' is a social construct does not negate the fact that as 'women' live in society and are branded and treated as 'women' rather than 'men' by that society, there will inevitably be a specificity of women's experience within that society and as a result of that social construct.

My partner, for example, identifies as a feminist and an ally, and tries to live his life as such, but there have been times when I have been upset by acts of sexism or subtle sexual harassment that he has not been able to fully understand.
It is not that you are being shut out from the movement, but that cis-gendered men will never be able to fully understand the experience of women, cis- or otherwise gendered.

In a society built on social constructs, that is a fact, and though we can all hopefully agree to work to counter that together, as things stand men in the feminist movement, like straight people in the queer movement or white people in the civil rights movement, would do well to sit tight and listen, rather than taking offence to the truths pointed out to them by those for whom the movement was created.

Male, straight, mostly white feminist checking in: As a normative matter, it's sad that a male identifying as feminist is noteworthy. As a descriptive matter, though, the noteworthiness is undeniable, in that male feminists are simply more rare. As an example, the recent feministing happy hour here in NYC had something like forty-sixty women and about ten men. I was one of maybe ten guys in my sixty person gender studies class back in college. You get the idea.

I am not sure how this ties into being overrated or underrated. I think the vagueness of the label makes this difficult-- are we under or overrated for our value to the feminist movement? As friends? As people with worthwhile ideas? As romantic partners for female feminists who are interested in men? Something else, or a combination thereof? In the same sense that there are as many different feminisms as there are feminists, I suspect that each person who listed male feminists as overrated or underrated had something slightly different in mind. Viewed in that context, it would be interesting for people who think that male feminists are strongly overrated or underrated to explain what they meant and what their criteria are, if they're so inclined.

Regardless, beer is still overrated.

[I am hesitant to post because, as always, I fear I may be glossing over something or unconsciously duly dismissing something because I have a relatively high amount of privilege. I approach this in good faith, but welcome correction.]

It's depressing to see what seems like such an inspirational post so heavily attacked. I agree with most of the post; however I realize that I don't have the actual experiences of those doing the attacking.

Anyone seeking to help an oppressed group (say, a white male heterosexual feminist) ultimately has to know what they don't know. You have to accept the fact that, NO, you don't REALLY understand anything about what it is like to be a member of that group. Of course you can read entire volumes, study sociology for years, and gain a deep understanding of the workings of that oppression, but even then it is only a theoretical understanding. Every person has different experiences, and so it is arrogant to try to speak for someone else without acknowledging that you don't have that first-hand experience.

However, I will insist that feminism is defined as a set of ideals, and not the experience of being oppressed. Throughout history and even today there are many women, who experience that oppression but do nothing about it, because ultimately they believe in sexist ideals. It would seem bizarre to claim that a woman who accepts or even promotes patriarchy is somehow a feminist because she has been oppressed. If a woman becomes feminist because of her oppression, then it would be because she saw it as wrong and tried to reject it.

Feminist men are people who were able to see the patriarchy as wrong without actually experiencing its wrongs. In a way that is more difficult than when someone who does directly experience those wrongs makes the realization, and perhaps even more deserving of congratulations. However anyone who tries to help with any cause to receive congratulations as opposed to doing the right thing doesn’t really deserve them. In addition, as I’ve said, any male feminist, including myself, needs to know that they don’t know.

So while feminist men deserve a certain amount of recognition, as would anyone who wants to make the world a better place, we also have to recognize that feminist men can only speak with limited authority or understanding on many issues, and must be careful of their assumptions.

I don't think male feminists are overrated necessarily, I just think female feminists are underrated. Male feminists are 'unique', female feminists are 'old hat'. Sometimes people feel that a male feminist's perspective is somehow more 'special' than a woman feminist's perspective because there aren't that many male feminists. But that is stupid because everyone has a unique perspective.

I try to avoid the term "male feminists" in general. I don't feel the need to differentiate if we're all supportive of the same cause. If anything it just causes more of a divide in the feminist community... another divide that we just don't need.

Also, on the whole male-auction thing (that I haven't read), sure, objectification of men, two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think it should happen. But for me, the real issue with that is how strongly it speaks of slave-auctioning. I think that is where it is really problematic...

A few thoughts:
1) Feminism is often divided into "waves" because each time period was characterized by specific concerns and goals. This doesn't have to mean each one was monolithic and every single person in the movement agreed with everyone else.

2) It's not problematic to refer to movements or events as a particular name that's assigned later in life (World War I only became World War I after World War II, after all), and second wavers did refer to themselves as Feminists.

3) Second Wave feminism is characterized primarily by a concern with equality, which may or may not include control and leadership. Many second wave feminists were concerned primarily with equal pay for equal work, equal educational opportunities, etc. Most second wavers did not think that women should run the world, or a number of other things that are often attributed to them.

4) There's a huge difference between saying that a privileged person cannot understand a less privileged one and saying that they should not presume to speak exclusively on their behalf. Part of a post-modern, post-structuralist view is that one of the big problems with hierarchy is it often results in those in a higher position engaging in totalizing narratives and speaking for those in a lower position rather than letting the voices of marginalized people speak for themselves. That doesn't mean the more-privileged can't be an ally. It means that they must be careful not to let their voices drown out the voices of those they're attempting to help. And checking your privilege is a part of the process of being a good ally and ensuring that your allies are being heard.

5) The privileging of cis women is not the majority position in feminism, although I agree that those who do privilege the cis experience are often louder and more obnoxious than those who don't.

6) Feminism is a set of ideals and an experiential identification and a lifestyle and a critical stance and just about anything you make it into. There are unifying values and ideals having to do with social justice, but I feel uncomfortable with an exclusionary sort of definition.

7) It's true that working together toward social justice for all should be the overarching goal of feminism. But it's kind of impractical to expect a monolithic feminism to emerge from such a huge and diverse group. It's natural that some of us will be more engaged in working on some issues than others, according to life experience and opportunity. It's natural that there will be ideological disagreements, because we don't all share the same basic worldview. But that's OK. In fact, it's good. One of the areas where the second wavers failed was that they were trying to create this monolithic thing and to speak for everyone, when in fact you can only speak from your view and from your position in the culture. To try to have one unified movement with one goal and one voice is to overlook the needs and issues of many and to drown out their voices. This means that men do have a place in feminism, but it is no more or less valuable than the contribution of anyone else.

I think the "overrated" backlash occurs because so many men who identify as feminists really do expect a cookie, or a date (in my experience). This is not all that different than being a white ally to POC or a cis ally to trans folk. The first thing you have to acknowledge is that this really isn't about you, and if you're really invested in social justice you won't give a fuck that it isn't. Once your principles and values trump your ego, the rest follows.

I'll post it here again:

The men’s movement seems to stay stuck on two points. The first is that men don’t really feel very good about themselves. How could you? The second is that men come to me or to other feminists and say: “What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this.”

And I say: don’t tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There’s no point in telling me. I’m only a woman. There’s nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.

Then there is the private world of misogyny: what you know about each other; what you say in private life; the exploitation that you see in the private sphere; the relationships called love, based on exploitation. It’s not enough to find some traveling feminist on the road and go up to her and say: “Gee, I hate it.”

Say it to your friends who are doing it. And there are streets out there on which you can say these things loud and dear, so as to affect the actual institutions that maintain these abuses. You don’t like pornography? I wish I could believe it’s true. I will believe it when I see you on the streets. I will believe it when I see an organized political opposition. I will believe it when pimps go out of business because there are no more male consumers.

You want to organize men. You don’t have to search for issues. The issues are part of the fabric of your everyday lives.

by Andrea Dworkin addressing a congregation of anti-sexist men. Still relevant.