Men blogging about feminism
I’m often embarrassed by how little I write about feminism. I am more than happy to give my opinions here on Bright Green about a whole range of subjects. Clearly I’m not an expert in most, if any of them. As it happens, two of my modules for my degree were about feminist theory – one in political theory, one in philosophy. Now, that doesn’t in any way mean I am an expert in the subject. But I am more qualified academically in it than I am in almost anything else I ever write about. If that means anything.
And it isn’t because I don’t care about feminism. Gender divisions are an absolutely key part of oppression in the world. I don’t think you can understand how messed up our society is without understanding this, and without considering how both gender norms in general and the oppression of women in particular vastly impact on everything. As activists, gender is relevant to almost all we campaign on, and to how we go about campaigning.
Nope, as far as I’m concerned being a feminist is an important part of my political identity as being on the left, being an environmentalist, or being anti-racist. How could it not be?
I suppose one reason I rarely write about gender is that I sometimes feel as though there are many others who have much more to contribute on the subject – in particular, there are women. I can’t pretend to understand the nature of the oppression of women more than women do. But then I get into tough territory – I know some women who say they aren’t feminists. I think they are wrong. Does this mean I think I understand their plight better than they do? Or does it mean I don’t have any right to explain to them why I disagree with them – that I should leave this task to female feminists? Perhaps.
And then we can get into similar discussions about debates within feminist movements – I often have opinions in these debates. Do I have a right to those opinions?
Or, perhaps it’s slightly subtler than that. I never feel like I don’t have a right to *opinions*. I am just aware that, as a white man from a privileged background, society sometimes seems more likely to listen to my voice. But I don’t let this keep me quiet about other things. I won’t be hit as hard by cuts as many others. But I still write about and campaign against austerity all the time. So why do I let this fear stop me spouting opinions on the oppression of women – something about which I care deeply?
Is it, perhaps, the fear that I will be judged for doing so? Many female feminist activist groups I’ve come across have expressed the legitimate point that people liberate themselves, that men should be welcomed supporters of women’s struggles, but that we shouldn’t use the elbows that society sharpens for some of us to push our way to the front line. Others talk of how some women are less likely to speak in forums dominated by male voices, and so men should exclude ourselves from these forums.
But while these are all very good and well trodden arguments against me turning up at meetings of feminist groups and always speaking first and loudest, I am not sure that any of them are arguments against me writing the odd blog post about how I see gender oppression in the world – especially if I do so with an understanding of the position my background, race, gender and sex give me. Does it? I’d be interested in opinions. Perhaps these things give me a particular context from which I too can have a perspective on questions of gender – I have a particular viewpoint on some of the advantages society has given me. Maybe?
Let me know what you think, please. But, in the mean time, I’m going to write more here about gender. Now, blogging doesn’t change the world, and my random opinions on Bright Green certainly won’t. Frankly, I don’t know why you’ve read this far. But it will make me feel better about something that’s been bothering me for a while. And much more importantly, we’d certainly welcome people submitting posts discussing questions around feminism, or from a feminist perspective.
—
And while I’m in a reflective mood, we’d also love many more posts on all subjects from women. Because we are far too dominated by male writers here at BG. I’m sure we are doing something wrong – a very male dominated editorial team for a start. But for whatever reason, we very rarely have submissions from women. Please let us know if there are things we can do about that. And women, please do help us re-dress this imbalance. We’d be ever so grateful.
Feminism is nothing but an everyday disaster for the American male.
here’s a wonderful article by XY: http://www.xyonline.net/content/going-places-scare-me-personal-reflections-challenging-male-supremacy written by a man about challenging the sexism within his own group of comrades.
Yes men should write about feminism but also challenge and question gender relations around them…
and to Mark – i want to find my provocation to come from people of all genders, as I do my solidarity…
@38 Further to this, I would like to say that while you may consider The Anti-Porn Men Project to be ‘thought-reinforcing’ it is not at all clear to me that this is a bad thing, as it is not clear at all that there is the necessary breadth of awareness and understanding in our society of the critiques that already exist. Men as a group, for one, would maybe benefit from a greater breadth of such understanding.
It is true that these ideas have been developed by women, but how agreeing with women about something and wanting to do something about it amounts to acting like ‘action heros’ or having a ‘hero fantasy’, I really don’t know!
Men need to take an active role in feminism. Men are the main producers and consumers of an industry dealing in misogynist and sexist propoganda. Porn, therefore, is an obvious point of departure for men’s involvment in feminism.
@38 While I am not especially interested in engaging in a discussion about hermeneutics with you, -as I think we agree on the possibility of men’s ‘provokative’ involvement feminism- I would like to offer the suggestion that while you seem to present the hermeneutic dialogue as taking place between women and men (as some sort of unified political or cultural groups) this is not the case. Rather there is the possibility that the dialogue takes place between patriachy and those who believe in gender equality (feminists, pro-feminists whatever people call themselves).
This is truly bizarre. How can I, in any meaningful sense, gain credit for something allegedly “clever” that I posted on a blog under the name “Mark” when nobody here knows who I am and there must be literally millions of people out there called “Mark”?
And, Man on the Street, when you complain about the way I’ve responded to you “poking fun” at my alleged pretentiousness, it sounds to me that you assume that people should have the same sort of temperament. I don’t make that assumption, so it doesn’t really bother me that you don’t like my mode of expression – which, I readily admit, is quite stylised. I don’t really care much for your mode of expression, either. But I’m not going to weep about it. Now grow up, my friend.
Finally, Laurie… My point is precisely that unless we use some conceptual tools from – dare I say it – the hermeneutic tradition to work through this very important question which Adam raises, we won’t be able to tease what is at stake here. So, for instance, a lot of people who have posted comments so far have said that they think men should be thought of as being pro-feminism rather than feminists per se. I’m actually struggling to imagine what kind of analysis couched in “lay-person’s terms” could possibly cope with teasing out the conceptual difference between a “pro-feminist” and a “feminist”. So, please, don’t complain when I dare to suggest that you might need some help from theoretical quarters to address this problem!
Mark,
Have I been caught out? Are you in a competition or something? Quite how you deduce anything from two throwaway lines that are obviously poking fun at your pretentiousness is beyond me.
Maybe you should deconstruct your own posts? It seems to me that you clearly wish to appear very, very clever indeed. If you were very, very, clever, then you would have posted a message that the majority of people could get to grips with. As it was, you just wanted to appear to be very, very, clever. Now why is that?
Perverted by language, moi?
Mark – are you for real here? Your posts, while interesting to feminism academics I’m sure, may be likely to confound the laypersons in the debate, in which I would certainly include myself. Reminds me of that guy in a bar in Good Will Hunting who embarks on a self-indulgent & self-righteous monologue before being brought down to earth by Will/Matt Damon. Though perhaps I should be critiquing my own ignorance here rather than your post…
He may have been bang on the money about postmodernism. But he has never tackled hermeneutics.
Just admit it – you’ve been caught out here. You cited Sokal without any understanding of either the people he has critiqued or his critique itself.
He was bang on the money.
As long as you are happy that the erectile organ isn’t equal to the square root of minus one…
Hermeneutics is hundreds of years old. The object of Alan Sokal’s critique is postmodernism which – to the extent that something with that label even exists – is a mere 40 years old.
There’s a reason why intellectual minnows such as Sokal go for the saplings rather than the grand old oaks.
Mark at 38
You are Alan Sokal and I claim my £5
Either way, your heurmeneutics are totally transformative. Well said.
Nope. Sorry. Don’t get most of this. Too many long words. I’m going to stick to making the tea. Anyone want a biccy?
The problem is one of Otherness and hermeneutics. If I invite someone to enter a dialogue with me, it’s usually on the assumption that the dialogue will be on equal terms. I grant my interlocutor the possibility that she will persuade me to leave behind my opening position, whilst she grants me the same courtesy. This is not a question of politeness – it’s a necessary precondition for debate.
The problem comes when those who enter upon a dialogue are not only divided by a power-differential – but that the very power-differential between them is what is at stake in the dialogue. Under such circumstances, it is absurd to think that the necessary precondition for genuine debate just discussed could be left in place. This is why some of those who have passed comment already have suggested that men’s contribution to feminism should be limited to educating themselves, speaking out and so on, without actually influencing the direction of the critique.
Personally, I think this sort of ‘domestication’ of the Other should be avoided. A contribution to a political debate should be thought-provoking, not ‘thought-reinforcing’. A provocation to thought can come from the Other – especially a privileged Other. There are feminists who have found the contributions of Jean Baudrillard and Slavoj Zizek to feminism stimulating and helpful – precisely because those authors have dared to provoke (see Baudrillard’s ‘Seduction’ and Zizek’s ‘The Plague of Fantasies’).
I find the ‘thought-reinforcing’ gestures of things like the Anti-Porn Men Project completely patronising towards women. That particular project replicates the very objectification it claims to oppose. The Anti-Porn Men aren’t influencing the direction of the critique; the ideas have been developed by women, whilst it is them – the men, the A-Team, the action heroes – who will do the actual liberating… Of course, why question what lies beneath the rhetoric of “respectful engagement”? Because sexuality raises the question of the unconscious; so when someone consciously commits themselves to a position on sexuality, we have to start wondering what forms of fantasy and libidinal attachment are sustaining that position. And I think the Anti-Porn Men are motivated by hero fantasies which are every bit as problematic as any others they claim to be purging themselves of.
So that is what I urge you to do, Adam. Forget helping out women in their drive for liberation. They will sort that out for themselves. Avoid solidarity – go for provocation!
A few thoughts:
The main thing is that you are acknowledging your privilege, Adam, and that is extremely important. I’m a middle class person who involves myself in working class struggles so I empathise on that point. It’s all about being aware that you don’t know everything and listening to people whose experiences are valuable to the struggle.
There is a definite problem with men who identify as feminists but don’t act upon it properly – as if somehow their identification negates their need to police their own actions, because they couldn’t possibly be sexist. On the contrary, I almost prefer it when sexist men are openly sexist because at least then I know where I stand.
I’ve had one or two absolutely terrible experiences recently with huge sexists who don’t acknowledge that socialism has a gender problem, but because they’re ‘good socialists’ they identify as feminists too. The Tommy Sheridan case was a prime example of gender and leadership clashing very badly together in socialist politics, but I see it every day even on a very small scale level. It’s the man who talks over you making you feel small, it’s the man who denies your right to complain about sexism in a socialist group, it’s the man who comments on your appearance or, in my case, ample cleavage, making me feel like a piece of meat.
Self-awareness is hugely important, and it seems to me like it’s something you have a lot of, Adam, so that’s a very good start.
I do prefer it when men call themselves pro-feminists rather than feminists, because it gives a better impression of how they view their privilege and relationship with the feminist movement.
Kate
I too am coming late to the comments party. Hope I haven’t missed the boat. Interesting post, Adam, that raises lots of important questions. I think I agree with Emma’s points above, when she says, ‘For me feminism is about finding a true balance, its about equality and fundamentally is about liberating women and men from the misery of patriarchy.’
That is a really important point for me – that patriarchy oppresses women and men. As well as the more concrete inequality issues, there is a whole cultural arena in which patriarchy operates. It creates absurd gender roles and stereotypes and encourages false divisions between women and men which are hugely unhelpful. These kinds of things are more complicated and less clear-cut than issues around equal rights,and involve changing perceptions and assumptions, and it is absolutely vital that men play their part in challenging these things eg. through challenging casual misogyny in other men or refusing to conform to silly social gender roles.
We all benefit from having a more equal society. So while I do see that campaigns for equal rights – equal pay, childcare, etc – need to be driven and ultimately come from women themselves, men and women also need to make the point that if, for example, women have access to better childcare as a society we ALL benefit from this. So I see no reason why men shouldn’t be actively involved in campaigning, arguing and writing about it. If men do more of this then it might just erode some of the stupid stigmas that exist around feminism, about it being man-hating etc.
And, as you say Adam, issues of gender intersect with pretty much all our other campaigns on the left, so I guess it’s important to just keep on pointing this out when writing about these other things.
By stoic trances above I meant egoic trances – thanks iPhone dictionary!
Thought this a brilliantly humble yet stimulating post Adam, really enjoyed it & hope to make it through the comments eventually-on 1st glance Rowen’s & Justin’s seemed particularly insightful.
My two cents: I’m fairly convinced that the need for feminism & any negative reaction to it is derived almost entirely from the ego-driven insecurity of men, and to a much lesser, but still significant extent, by that of women. To explain: I believe that many men (consciously or subconsciously) feel threatened by women, yet the negative consequences of this male insecurity may be exacerbated by some women whose self-esteem has understandably been so diminished by the established patriarchy that they accept their situation/mistreatment. I don’t mean to blame women at all; I merely think that the consequences of their responses to misogyny are important to consider.
Solutions? Imho, helping as many men & women (starting with the feminist movement, in which I would loosely include myself) to awaken from the stoic trances that we’ve been conditioned to exist in. A New Earth by Eckhart Tolles & Happiness by Matthieu Ricard explain the problem(s) & provides guidance.
Secondly, to create the kind of paradigm shifts needed to move towards a compassionate world of equality, sustainable societies & economies, with greatly reduced avoidable suffering, I am convinced that a strong understanding of values, their interrelation & responses to language are key. I’ve found ‘A Political Mind’ by Lakoff, WWF’s Common Cause report & http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com invaluable in building an understanding of how to help create the kind of change we need.
Would love to read any thoughts on my thoughts 🙂
For context I am XY
Justin – thank you, yes, I think this is spot on. As you say there has to be a transfer of power from men to women, but this isn’t to say that all men have all the power. The problem as is systemic, and to blame any one sexist man for patriarchy is like blaming any one exploitative millionaire for neo-liberalism. Ie they must carry some responsibility, but are not the root of the problem.
Am I so late to the comments-party (nice expression!) that everyone’s left the building? When I first read this piece I thought “I don’t want to be the first to comment”.
Ten years or more of lecturing on anthropology has included gender (not much surprise there) and I’m amazed by how many women specifically want to be clear that they are “not feminists” – presumably because the term has managed to be equated by the powers that be with man-hating. That suggests to me that the powers that be find this term and what it means incredibly threatening. From one point of view this is about patriarchy and men oppressing women, but from another point of view it is about a self-perpetuating life-destroying system using whatever divisions it can (ethnic, gender, etc) to perpetuate itself and divide us.
Adam says (at 25. above) that “We are not talking about a series of trades, where women give some kinds of power to men and men give other kinds to women. We are talking about a transfer of power from men to women until these powers are equal.”
From the point of view of this being about patriarchy that is clearly right. But from the point of view of this also being about a system dividing people against themselves, it may not be the whole truth. How far have we got as a society by addressing this problem in terms of changes to ensure that men don’t get all the best stuff? Equal pay acts, making sure women don’t get discriminated against in the job market, childcare so women can work, domestic violence legislation, etc, are all crucial; but have they been enough to even achieve their limited aims of protecting women from men’s violence and ensuring equality in the workplace? Clearly not.
If we see how the dominant ideology tends to deny women one whole lot of stuff, but also tends to deny men the ability to even realise they want a whole lot of other stuff (e.g. awareness of their feelings, ability to relate, time with their kids) then does that help us unite against a common enemy?
Is there a useful parallel between gender oppression and human oppression of other species? On the one hand it is clear that humans are ruthlessly exploiting other species and driving them to extinction. On the other hand it is by no means all humans who are doing this (there are a vast number of societies cross-culturally who know that we depend on the rest of the environment and act accordingly); and all of us here on this blog would surely not see this society’s domination of the environment as giving us any meaningfully better lives: it degrades us, and is part of a system that is destroying us and our future too.
To say men are oppressed by patriarchy can be used as an excuse by men to not look at the huge benefits they think they gain from perpetuating patriarchy, or it can be the biggest challenge to men to really see what we are perpetuating and how it not only ties into the destruction of women’s life chances and the planet, but also ties into a system that divides us from ourselves – leaving us all at the mercy of consumerisms false promise that its stuff, its transient pleasures built on others pain, is all there really is; when, in fact, its all there really isn’t.
…which is…? (c’mon, don’t leave us hanging…)
Fav feminist quote ever is from Christopher Hitchens.
And no, I don’t think you should be reluctant to talk about feminism, or gender related issues. Society gives you a voice, use it in whatever way you see fit. I think is a point of recognising privilege. We all have to do it for something.
I know many feminist men, in fact- some who would tell you they are, and are, and some people who say they are not- but are- in so much as they recognise gender inequality and the unfairness of it, and treat the women around them with respect etc I think the problem comes with a minority who will define themselves as such, and then use that self definition to oppress. We have all seen it many times, in real life on twitter- has been the curse of the ‘left’ since their ever was such a thing.
I liked the analogy with the civil rights movement. It’s not the easiest area of debate for men to get involved in. A few months ago I met the head of the English Defence League’s Jewish Division (I kid you not) who was born in Brazil and moved to the UK at the age of 20 or thereabouts. The spiel I got (I’d say diatribe, but she was fairly polite in expressing her prejudices – needless to say about Muslims) about how to be English rather stuck in my craw. I guess that is not disimilar from how women might feel about being ‘lectured’ by men about feminism.
One gentle request though; some of the posts are a little hard to decipher – I’m sure Beth makes a really important point when she says:” So, feminist men, who’s going to step in and explain why ‘equalism’ doesn’t cut it when the issue is gender and why semantic slights [sic] of hand are less important than festering pits of reality?” but the terminology defeats me.
I see your point, Adam. It certainly works for me.
Alex, it isn’t pedantry. You are making a political point – one which is to a certain extent reasonable, but which I disagree with.
Because yes, the way that society genders us oppresses us all, and yes, what we should strive for is equality. But if we refuse to talk about feminism, then we fail to accept that women are much more oppressed than men. As I say above, I would much rather I didn’t have cultural notions of masculinity imposed on me. But the ways that I am oppressed are nothing to the ways that women are oppressed. When we talk about equality rather than specifically feminism, we fail to aknowledge that. We are not talking about a series of trades, where women give some kinds of power to men and men give other kinds to women. We are talking about a transfer of power from men to women until these powers are equal.
Or, put it another way, we live in a patriarchal society – a society in which men have more power than women. Feminism is about deconstructing that patriarchy. Liberal ideas of “equalism” fail to recognise that. And if we don’t recognise that, I don’t see how we can solve the problem.
Will that do Beth?
But Beth, I was only complaining about semantic slights of hand because I’m just really damn pedantic. (And also because I didn’t want to just repeat what all the previous commenters had written. Which is what I would have written, had I not been late to the comment-party and all of them lot hadn’t already said it.) Please don’t take offence! :S
Oh, and porn is horrible. I don’t like porn, and I’m all against the sexist attitudes and beliefs which seem to permeate the industry which makes it — but pointing a camera at people having sex isn’t neccessarily a bad thing (as far as I can tell). That pedantry of mine makes it impossible for me to be a part of an ‘anti-porn’ movement without feeling awkward and wrong, and so I can’t use my “privilege for good.”
And I believe pedantry about language is a good thing. Language itself shapes a human’s basic ideas.
So, feminist men, who’s going to step in and explain why ‘equalism’ doesn’t cut it when the issue is gender and why semantic slights of hand are less important than festering pits of reality? It’d be lovely not to have to.
Yeah, can’t believe I didn’t include the Anti Porn Men Project as a recommendation as well. It gives me faith in the possibility of dismantling patriarchy when all seems bleak. Porn’s omnipresence is so taken for granted, more and more so, and having more male voices speaking about the reality of how it’s made and how it affects us all does (annoyingly) make people rethink the issue who have tuned out all the female voices talking about it. The Anti Porn Men project got a huge amount of positive coverage when they launched, more than Object does, so a very good example of using privilege for good.
It’s sad to see people not taking part in *any* debate — let alone one of this calibre — especially when they have something interesting to say, so I’m happy for you, Adam. But there’s something that bothers me about the word ‘feminism’ — not the content of the word, but the word itself.
I always struggle with this idea that fighting for women’s rights is somehow something only women can really do, and I can’t help but feel that this restrictive idea is partially reinforced by the word we use for the fight — ‘feminism’ — being a word which isn’t gender-specific. That is, calling what is simply a form of equalism by a name which derives from ‘feminine’, making it a gender-specific thing, might make it difficult for non-females to get behind it.
I may not actually have a point here. Hmm.
On a side note, @Kat Banyard: Yes, I agree with you. The pornography industry is a festering, murky pit of horror, and as a result, the porn industry is now one of the biggest sources of sexist propaganda in the world. But that doesn’t mean pornography (and ‘erotica’, if there’s a difference, but as far as I’m concerned the two are synonymous) is inherently a bad thing. So being ‘anti-porn’, in my opinion, is a step way too far.
**write, not ‘right’
Spelling fail. the shame!
Hurray for feminists! All feminists, men or women. We need more people willing to identify themselves with feminism, more people to right about it, more people to stand up and be proud about it!
Men talking about feminism help to show that it’s not a niche political group of bitter bitches. (thanks, Daily Mail.) It is a serious issue which needs to be discussed and fought for, and it always warms my heart to hear a man fighting our corner, too.
Great post! For a brilliant example of male feminist activism check out the Anti Porn Men Project: http://www.antipornmen.org/ Set up by a young guy who rightly recognised the unqiely important role men have to play in challenging the pornography industry – and the fact that porn is now one of the biggest sources of sexist propaganda in the world today.
Adam, your blog is too popular… every time I’ve come back today to comment, there’ve been more comments I’ve wanted to read before making my own. 😛
Beth’s hit on the point I most wanted to make, though:
“I think the most valuable thing that men can do is inform themselves, really, meaningfully and deeply about feminism, and then to take some of the weight off female feminists of always having to explain it to complete beginners and misogynists.”
To expand on this: That burden of education that she mentions is not a small one. It’s downright exhausting, and hearing people tell men they should asbtain from it because it is “not their fight” irritates me to no end. All that does is leave it all on us, and leaves women as the only ones speaking up for our own equality. Like, if you were in an argument in a pub, wouldn’t you want your friends to back you up, even if they didn’t have any personal stake in the issue being debated?
Also I think women are ghettoized a bit, even in lefty circles, as being the only ones expected to speak at or attend events about feminism; it’s certainly irritating to so frequently see situations like one I saw Laurie Penny complain about a few months ago, where she was the only woman on a panel of six, and her assigned topic was ‘feminism’. Having more men blogging/talking about it might change that. Maybe. Hopefully.
For what it’s worth, I find men’s perspectives particularly helpful in discussions of privilege. Especially in situations where you have a lot of women trying to explain male privilege to men who keep denying that it exists, having even a few men say that they have observed it from the other side is very useful, even if it is dismaying that said privilege-denying men thus seem to be only accepting “evidence” when it comes from a male rather than a female source. So I guess maybe it is a situation where you can use your privilege for Good?
Very interesting and worthwhile post. I wrote about similar issues a couple of years ago, which you might be interested to browse…particularly the Chris Crass essay which is linked in the post.
http://anglobuddhistcombine.blogspot.com/2009/06/men-and-feminism.html
Matt
Interesting. Definitely agree with Ellie here:
“I suppose what I’m trying to say is that an oppressed group can never be emancipated by others. To grant others freedom is a statement of power in itself.”
But somehow, from a men’s feminist perspective, I still feel part of the struggle, even though I understand I’m on the privileged side. When I see oppression, especially on this scale – more than 50% of the population and some of it truly horrifying – I feel utterly disgusted, angry and emotional. That feeling of injustice, despite not being on the receiving end, always makes me feel part of the struggle. And I suspect similar feelings motivate a lot of people.
Also, although women have the most to gain, all feminists, all people who empathise with the oppressed, have something to gain. I certainly believe I have something to gain. Therefore, despite women shouldering the burden, I think the struggle, to a small degree, is shared.
I’m with Anna. Patriarchy isn’t something upheld and perpetuated by a shadowy cabal of men, it’s perpetuated by society as a whole and some form of traditionalism/conservatism. Equality is a part of Universal Human Rights, it’s not a condition or part of a peace agreement between the genders.
That said, you don’t expect battles for equality to be led by the people who are least discriminated against, but it should still be framed as a battle against tradition and the status quo rather than between groups of people.
Thanks for the further comments. Nishma, yes, I am sure you are right. I am also sure I am often guilty of precisely the lack of awareness that you talk about. I am often the first person to jump in in a meeting and probably in doing so shut out others who I suspect are disproportionately female. I know that more of my closer friends are men than are women, and I’m sure I sometimes (often? Always?) contribute to processes that exclude women/some women/are more likely to exclude women. I also know that there are other men on the left who are known for these trates. However, I don’t think it’s entirely fair to say that these men can’t be feminists. Because it is surely possible to believe in gender equality but not always behave in ways that promote it just as it is possible to believe in environmentalism but not always do that thing that is likely to lead to the least resource consumption. These people (including me, I’m sure) need to be educated, and need to be reminded of what it is that we do which causes these problems, and helped to understand the problems that we help to cause. The need for education in these things is not, however, the same as not being a feminist. Or that’s how I see it anyway.
Yes yes yes. There are two reasons that men should feel ok about blogging on feminism and gender. Firstly the patriarchy hurts men too. And secondly men are in a unique position to deconstruct and challenge male privilege.
I recommend looking up PhysioProf. He’s a male feminist blogger who writes about such things as objectification, evo-psych, discussions happening on feminist blogs, feminist books etc. He does so in a very forthright way, has strong opinions and states them clearly, but is also aware of his the male privilege and perspective that he has. He writes well about feminism because he reads widely about feminism and doesn’t mind taking a risk and getting something wrong.
I think the most valuable thing that men can do is inform themselves, really, meaningfully and deeply about feminism, and then to take some of the weight off female feminists of always having to explain it to complete beginners and misogynists. Challenge sexism and leering in pubs, on facebook, in the street.. it’s not hard to find.
I would advise against trying to convert any women to feminism, or seeming to. I knew a guy who told his girlfriend that she should stop shaving her legs because it wasn’t feminist to do so! Extreme example, but men telling women how to be a feminist is definitely not helpful. But, luckily for you, there are many many men who need your advice on becoming better feminists.
I look forward to lots of lovely gendery blogging!
I think this article raises a very important point about men in the feminist debate, as I don’t think equality can be achieved if we see it as a power struggle between men and women. Immediately, you begin to create further gender divisions. In my view it is a power struggle between people and tradition, and between logic and what is indoctrinated into you by culture. Also, as has been pointed out, men suffer from patriarchal suppression aswell as women. Another problem is that a women only movement enforces the stereotype that only women can campaign for equality, and that it is unnatural for men to join this, which leads to the thought process that it IS natural for men to suppress women.
In addition, being a woman does not necessarily make you a feminist, just as being a man means you cannot be one. Many women encourage their own suppression through upholding ‘rules’ like women should not ‘sleep around’ as much as men, it should be every woman’s dream to be helplessly rescued by a man. So I think that a man is as qualified as a woman to encourage feminism, or to point out that a woman is a feminist if she believes that she should have an equal chance as men in her life.
I do not see this as ‘women’s struggle’, for two reasons. Taking the Civil Rights example, if all the white people had been pro-civil rights, thre wouldn’t have been a problem, and furthermore, when the Black Power movement alienated white sympathisers, black people suffered for it. The second reason is that the problem is in society’s attitudes, and society is made of both men and women. If women exclude men from the feminist debate, they will continue to be suppressed…. in my opinion. Great article, anyway.
> I also find that some of the worst anti-femanist, those who continue the sepretion and oppresion of women in the most pshycological and pernicious way are other women themselves.
In any oppressed group, there will be those whose preferred way out is to join the oligarchy rather than trying to bring it down. To achieve this, it is necessary that they (at least implicitly) accept the inferiority of their group in general, and cast themselves as an exception. If they succeed in joining the oligarchy, they generally think that this in itself vindicates them, and proves them superior to the rest of their group: and they will often even identify as radicals, and demand to be seen as role models.
Women who have made it their mission in life to succeed on male terms, who have ruthlessly put down other women both individually and collectively along the way, and who oppose almost any feminist cause you care to name, will therefore sometimes call themselves feminists. (See: almost any rightwing female politician in the Western world.)
However hesitant I, as a man, feel about involving myself in such debates, they’re wrong. I feel able to say so here, among friends; or when debating with their male supporters. I’d be less ready to tell *them* so. Just as Adam worries about whether it’s his place to tell a woman she is a feminist, I can’t help feeling that it’s not my place to tell a woman she isn’t: especially since, as Ellie Mae rightly points out, this is women’s fight to lead and to win.
I don’t really have a conclusion; I’d just like to thank Adam for articulating a lot of my own thoughts on this subject.
Thanks for the comments all,
yes, I very much agree that men too are oppressed by patriarchy. I basically cry in almost every film I ever watch, but there are those who think this is somehow innapropriate because of my sex. I am as a straight man often expected, it seems, to make the first move when I fancy someone. I am rubbish at that. But I can’t pretend that these things in any way add up to the fact that I am paid more, have a more interesting job, am more confident in general, am rarely on the recieving end of innappropriate or unwanted comments about my appearance, am more likely to own property, and am allowed to get pasionate without being told to ‘calm down dear’. etc…
Anyway, thanks for the comments, I’m half way through a piece on my observations of gender in activist movements, so that should be up here soon. And, as I say, we’d really welcome pieces from other people!
I feel I have to concur with Ellie here, on the large part.
But there is a huge difference between a man saying he is a feminist to actually being one. The amount of left-wing men that run through politics are overwhelmingly oblivious to the way women are ignored, silenced and pushed aside within that realm.
It is best to learn by listening before you can define something as your cause.
This is not just about submissions to a blog, but about sharing the “blogosphere” in the first place.
Last paragraph should read:
This all sounds awfully militant, but I guess what I’m saying is that men can be feminists – of course they can – but their role should always be one of solidarity, empathy and support in a struggle which, ultimately, isn’t THEIRS.
My kingdom for an edit button!
I think feminist men are to be welcomed into the feminist debate, for sure. However, I differ from the other commenters here in the sense that I do think there is a huge difference between male and female feminists and that difference ought to be respected (not that Adam isn’t already doing that).
Being a male feminist, in my mind, is like being a white person in the civil rigts movement. You’ve got a right to be there, the cause is strengthened by your presence, you have a role to play – but ultimately the fight isn’t yours to win. Adam talks about wanting to champion the cause of feminism. That’s something I’m down with in some ways, but I do find myself wondering how things would be different if a white person had made the ‘I have a dream speech’ instead of Martin Luther King.
I’m being over the top, but you get the jist.
I suppose what I’m trying to say is that an oppressed group can never be emancipated by others. To grant others freedom is a statement of power in itself.
This all sounds awfully militant, but I guess what I’m saying is that men can be feminists – of course they can – but their role should always be one of solidarity, empathy and support in a struggle which, ultimately, isn’t there.
I wanted to add my voice to those thanking you for raising such an important issue in a genuinely thoughtful manner. I’m in complete agreement that we need male voices complimenting those of women who problematise issues around gender equity. And as some of the other writers have highlighted – men are equally trapped within the prison of their own rigid gender roles as women are. So, if you find at times you are unable to find your voice amongst some of the women-centred feminist debates, I know I’d love to hear your thoughts on how we can unlock fresh and diverse male voices, especially within political dialogue.
I consider myself a male feminist primarily because there are many ways in which men, myself among them, are also hurt by patriarchy. Society expects us to maintain a certain facade of traditional masculinity at all times; lest we be dismissed as sissies. I’ve been ridiculed for not owning a car, for not taking a strong interest in professional sports, and for not behaving like a sociopathic moron when I go out to a bar.
Of course, of my experience pales in comparison to the multiple systems of socio-economic oppression that patriarchy imposes on
women. That’s an important point for all male feminists to remember. But anti-patriarchy activism should not be a competition to be the most oppressed. Patriarchy affects me in, and that means that I fight it both out of self-interest and solidarity for those whose struggle is much greater than mine.
I’m a lesbian, I identify as a feminist and I would like to say hurrah. I’m glad you’ve written this post and I think adding your voice to the feminist conversation is really important and positive. For me feminism is about finding a true balance, its about equality and fundamentally is about liberating women and men from the misery of patriarchy. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important for women to have ‘women only spaces’ and ‘women only discourses’. Those spaces and conversations are important (for all the reasons mentioned in your blog). But no man who wants to engage in a conversation about how to develop a more equal and loving way of living should be made to feel unwelcome or marginalised. To me that seems to fly in the face of what we are all trying to achieve. We can’t build understanding and inclusive forms of communication if men are prohibited from taking part in this creation! I also disagree with the idea that the oppressed must solely liberate themselves. If we look at other struggles of oppressed people – yes the oppressed do need to engage, exert their own power and force change, but having allies is essential. Look at South Africa. Do we say that Helen Suzman’s work for example was irrelevant in that struggle? I think not. But to be clear, I actually disagree with the premise of this idea full stop. As I’ve stated earlier, men are oppressed within patriarchy. The oppressions may be more subtle, but they are real. In that case men have every right to discuss this issue. And the more men that do, the more those who benefit from keeping the system just as it is will find it harder simply to dismiss the conversation. The more this issue is discussed full stop, the more power all feminists (female and male) will have.
Finally, at the beginning of this blog you talk about the holistic nature of the problems facing us. I couldn’t agree more. In mainstream political discourse we are encouraged to look at environmental / economic / social / sexual / etc problems as if they were all isolated (when we know they are linked). I would argue that that is an inherent problem that patriarchy not only promotes but also is characterised by. Looking at things in a holistic manner is often derided. “Stick to the point!’ says patriarchy, because sticking to the point helps close down debate (as does telling people who have an opinion that they may not express it). Abstractions allow for brilliant but brittle thinking. To my mind, the thinking that tells male feminists they are not welcome to discuss feminism is the same kind of thinking that allows economists to dismiss the environment as an ‘externality’. It’s the kind of thinking that distorts representations of who we actually are and what we actually need. So, I think allowing ourselves to flow, to make connections which are not readily perceived as ‘appropriate’ is a powerful negation of patriarchy itself as well as being a way to build ways of thinking which will lead to the solutions we so badly need as human beings inhabiting this planet at this moment in time.
I think that in some areas of femanisim it is vitally important that men play a role. For instance when we discuss domestic violence and rape. It is something that women and children are largely on the recieving end of (some of those children grow up to be men), and those people need to have a safe place where their voices can be heard.
But it doesn’t happen in isolation from male family, friends, and society at large. And the men I know are interested in the welfare of their sisters, mothers, aunts, grandmothers, wives, girlfriends and friends. In my opinion, if we are to really tackle issues such as domestic violence, men have an important part to play.
I also find that some of the worst anti-femanist, those who continue the sepretion and oppresion of women in the most pshycological and pernicious way are other women themselves. That has always been the case in the women’s movement. It’s worth checking out this book if your interested in criticism of the women’s movement (esp. in America)and how it has lost its way http://tinyurl.com/6e884o6
Yes, we don’t want guy’s coming in and dominating debate, but debate will be an awful lot weaker, and not so useful if your not included in it. After all when we live together side-by-side, we are part of the solution, as much as we can all be part of the problem.
Well, speaking as a lady of the female persuasion (and a self-identified feminist), I’m always glad to hear men identify as feminists and get stuck in to feminist debates. I think it helps to dispel the perception that feminism is something that’s only of concern to women, or that it’s somehow anti-men (one of the charges that feminism most struggles with in popular discourse – not that I think it’s justified, but it does get thrown about a lot). It also helps to prevent feminist debates from becoming arid and other-worldly; nothing’s going to change without the cooperation, involvement and goodwill of at least a sub-section of men, so excluding them from debate seems self-defeating to me.
(This isn’t to deny the importance of women-only spaces, or women-dominated spaces, which I think are fascinating and often of great value. But it doesn’t have to be either/or – we can have both.)
As with lots of broad-based movements, there are so many shades of opinion within feminism that you’d drive yourself mad trying to reconcile all of them. There will be some feminists who think men have no right to contribute, just as there are some who think that I (as a straight woman) have no right to contribute. I think these people are a little bit crazy, and I tend to give them a wide berth. I wouldn’t waste too much time worrying about people who don’t want your involvement; so long as you’re not actively trying to invade the spaces they’ve set aside for themselves, I don’t see how you can go wrong by just getting stuck in.