Sometimes, the semantics matter
Published by punkass marc May 28th, 2006 in FeminismCharlie from Shades of Grey makes some fine points that further the discussion of whether it is valuable or harmful for men to be called feminists, why men may be inclined to accept or reject the label, and whether this debate is even worth the effort spent on it. Charlie concludes:
Still, when it’s all said and done, it seems to me that by claiming men can’t be feminists, the only thing that is accomplished is to waste a lot of energy arguing semantics. Assuming that we share the common goal of promoting equality of the sexes, it seems like a pretty silly thing to artificially divide an otherwise united group of people.
I’ve posted on the subject before, coming down on the side of those who argue men can’t claim the label. I believe that, for many men, the desire to be called a feminist is subconsciously driven by the patriarchal conditioning that we men have a right to be included in whatever group or movement we want provided we play by the rules. I don’t think this is always the case, and am certainly not accusing Charlie of it. But I think it’s a valuable, often unstated element of the debate and needs to be considered by men who reflexively expect to be let in. It can be tough to admit one’s motivations aren’t pure; it was for me. But if even a few people recognize something about themselves of which they weren’t previously aware, that makes the semantic debate worthwhile.
This isn’t the only reason I disagree with Charlie’s assessment that this discussion is a waste of time. A man claiming the title of feminist also inherently claims the idea that he is a full equal in the movement. Theoretically, then, he claims to be as qualified as anyone else to take on a leadership role in the movement. The subtle desire to possess the capacity to control a movement or its discourse (even if you oh-so-graciously decline to exercise it) also seems tainted by social conditioning promoting male dominance. At some fundamental level, we expect to be granted the power to lead.
It goes without saying that no man has personally experienced the same patriarchal oppression a woman has. Amanda Marcotte and others often point out that the patriarchy also harms men, but it’s oppression of a different sort. In the end, all men benefit in certain ways from the system, even if we’re unwilling participants, and we certainly have no way to fully comprehend what any woman experiences through it. Perhaps, then, men should shy away from any title that implies he could be qualified to direct feminism. We also shouldn’t run the risk of eventually co-opting it, even if we don’t mean to.
Charlie points out that male rejection of the title “feminist” furthers the idea that “‘feminism’ is seen as a dirty word by many in our society, including both men and women.” But this is only true if men refuse to be associated with the word. In my previous post, I professed indifference as to whether or not men who support feminism labeled themselves at all, but Charlie’s convinced me that we should. We ought to promote a term that implies the supporting role we can play. For my money, I think someone who is “pro-feminist” endorses the movement but doesn’t necessarily take action on its part. A “feminist supporter” acts in support of feminism, or at least actively participates in its discourse. But I will happily defer to others if they can come up with better terms than these placeholders.
In many ways, accepting a title like “feminist supporter” as opposed to desiring the title “feminist” is itself an act in support of feminism. It avoids trivializing the ways women experience patriarchal oppression that we don’t, it implies we understand those experiences are important and serious enough to qualify only those who’ve been through them to take real leadership in the movement, and it conveys that we are comfortable as supporting players who want to help in any way we are asked as opposed to falling back on our patriarchal inclinations to take the wheel.
Charlie rightly points out that men can do a lot for feminism — indeed, that we are “uniquely positioned” to influence male-only conversations (especially those on rape) that often tend towards a tone of discrimination and/or objectification. And he’s right. But we can do that without overstating our rights.
I really believe men should take a back seat (albeit an active one) in feminism, but maybe advancing this argument is hypocrisy; maybe I’m overstepping the very bounds I’m trying to establish. If so, consider this a friendly suggestion that the feminist community is free to accept or reject. I happily defer to its judgment, especially if consensus is ever achieved on the matter. It seems the only feminist thing to do.
23 Responses to “Sometimes, the semantics matter”
- 1 Pingback on Jun 7th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I partially agree with what you have written, but I have to say I agree with Charlie more. I guess having a son to raise has colored my opinions to the contrary a bit much.
This is a wide-reaching conclusion IMO but you do say “for many.” But there are also a lot of men who aren’t like that; who also believe the feminist label is one that fits.
Couldn’t this be used for all humans, whether they are male or female? I don’t think, by claiming the title of feminist, a conscious decision by a well-aware man, is intended to be seen as equally qualified to take on leadership within the larger movement or that he believes he should be granted automatic power. Those that do don’t belong in the movement to begin with. Also, wouldn’t this just be assuming that whenever a man steps into a feminist organization, the feminist women present are going to automatically follow the man? In my experience, that’s not how it happens at all. The men who come in, then get upset because they aren’t the leaders, don’t get anywhere when I’m around because you can most often smell a rat as soon as they walk into the room.
Another question I would like to ask: why splinter the larger movement into several more by coming up with sub-titles for the men involved? Pro-feminist, as you said, proves only that the men are for feminism and the work it does, but feel the feminist label in and of itself is not right for them (not good enough perhaps?). The title of feminist supporter again leans to the notion that the men are supportive of feminism and the women in their lives who are feminists, but not of taking on the label for themselves.
I wonder if some men decide not to take on the name of feminist or jump into feminism because he is a man and to do so would might carry the propensity of emasculation. (And I’m not referring to you, btw, just thinking out loud.) Because to take on the label of feminist, those men would have to put their pride and ego’s down and take up a woman-centered life and live primarily in a woman-centered world. For this, men can get joked, jibbed, made fun of, etc. and some men just aren’t strong enough to stand up to this sort of peer pressure.
Yet I digress. If I were to get involved romantically with a man, I would want him to embrace the label of feminist simply because that is the world I live in. I would need him to understand and join me if we are survive the month. (In fact, the guy I am dating now sees himself as a Golden Rule type of guy and slowly I’m pointing out to him how that idea is ultimately too simplistic. Of course, that could just be the future sociologist in me talking, but that’s how I think.) That doesn’t mean I expect nor will allow him to begin taking over my life and telling me what to do.
Honestly, what you argue is the same premise for the many feminists out there who think women can’t be feminists and raise sons. There are those feminists out there who believe eventually we will have to relinquish our fight to the patriarchy because our sons are a huge part of it. I think by us not only remaining feminist as we raise sons, but also teach our sons to be feminists, too, gives them a sense of greater responsibility for their actions not only on the personal level, but on the political one as well.
That is also why I completely support men in the feminist movement, perhaps in support roles, and their proud proclamation that they are feminists, too.
a nut,
Thank you so much for the thoughtful reply. The perspective of a feminist raising a son is one i hadn’t considered — chalk up another example of my ignorance showing why I prefer to be thought of as a supporter and not an expert.
I will offer my perspectives on the topics you raise, but I do want to make clear that I am only trying to offer some input to the discussion. I really do genuinely believe the decision as to the extent of the role of men lies with others. Maybe I shouldn’t even be talking about it, then, but I just want to convey some thoughts on rights movements in general and on one patriarchally corrupted guy’s desire to do the right thing without accidentally fucking the right thing up (and how I think that may apply to all men).
Your first question revolves around my assertions about the risk of men co-opting the feminist movement. You make some excellent points and ask:
Charlie had a followup post in which I left a loooong set of comment replies, and I think I will post a modified excerpt from those comments here as they answer the same question:
In a rights movement, there’s no formal chain of command. Any blowhard who claims to be a full & equal member of that movement and speaks the loudest can exert a controlling influence. As long as you get more press or coverage than others, you can become an authority. That’s why full membership in any rights movement must be recognized sparingly by those who genuinely wish to advance it. I believe _any man or woman_ with potentially bad motives (known or unknown to her/him) can be a threat to the movement.
Take Caitlyn Flanagan. She claims to be a feminist but uses her pulpit to advance the cause of the patriarchy. Because of this, she isn’t recognized as a feminist by real feminists and feminist supporters. Still, she’s doing damage to the cause because others say that since she claims to be a feminist, it must be so — and thus she is granted improper license to speak loudly for the cause.
Caitlyn proves that just claiming the label can get you far too much press. This is why my first point is so crucial. If we agree that many men, if not all men, are knowingly or unknowingly capable of being occasionally affected by their patriarchal conditioning, maybe men shouldn’t be granted the label so they are not given authority they could accidentally abuse. And in case you assume men wouldn’t be taken seriously as feminist leaders, Amanda Marcotte recently reminded me that Air America once brought blogging badass Ampersand on as a feminist expert. Now, I think Amersand rules, but I don’t believe he should rep the cause as an expert as opposed to a supporter, and I know it rankled some feminists. But he was brought in as an expert, so it can happen.
Now you seem to not necessarily agree that the vast majority of men are still at least slightly patriarchally corrupted. I happen to think they are, even if they resist 99.9% of the time. That’s why I am worried, b/c I would hate to see any more Caitlyn Flanagans, regardless of their gender. By creating a framework in which men can only accept supporting roles and titles that reflect this, it doesn’t in any way have to detract from their commitment and desire to help in every way possible, but it can prevent them from being mistaken as voices of authority by those on the outside looking in.
I do apologize if I conveyed the idea that men will dominate feminism from within the movement just by participating. I hope the above clarifes my concerns.
You also ask:
I suppose that my answer above also addresses this. I think that once I say I am a feminist, I can now try to do everything I can to get on TV and in print to say how feminism should be. Yes, I am offering input in the subject right here and now, but only as a self-professed feminist supporter. As such, I claim only to be suggesting a position, not dictating one. I think the distinction matters.
I also agree that it could risk creating distracting subcategorization debates, but I do think “feminist supporter” is a clear, complete endorsement of the cause, implies that you are not a leader, but doesn’t let you off the hook for any bad behavior you must take responsibility for (otherwise, you aren’t a supporter, are you?).
———
In the end, I am not as strongly in the camp of “men can only call themselves supporters” as I claimed to be in my post weeks ago on the subject. I respect your position and Charlie’s very much. I just happen to see more value in men being granted only the title feminist supporter.
Patriarchal influences come from all around — it’s _the_ institution of society and is reflected in schools, in entertainment, in social circles, and by other adults. I am not sure if any boy can be raised with 0% corruption, but hopefully he can be taught to recognize it and nip it in the bud.
I am even less informed on child-rearing than I am on feminism, but I would imagine a son who is a full “feminist supporter” would be someone of which you could be mighty proud.
Like I defer to feminists on matters of feminism, though, I will happily defer to mothers on this one.
Thanks for the props about my blog.
I agree that there’s a significant danger when men take on leadership roles in feminist organizations, and - frankly - we probably shouldn’t (apart from organizations of pro-feminist men). But taken too far, your views could lead to the conclusion that men should avoid publicly speaking out in favor of feminism, lest they be taken for leaders. (That’s an issue which has been a problem for many female feminist leaders, too - it was a major source of feminist debate in the 1970s). I worry about that, because I feel that it’s essential that men who agree with feminist views say so often, and say so in public, and are willing to discuss it.
As for the danger you’re concerned about, of seeming to dictate what feminism is rather than merely contribute a view… Do you really think that danger will be mitigated simply by using “feminist supporter” or “pro-feminist” instead of “feminist”? I think that what matters less than the specific “I am a…” word used, is that we watch our tone and our subtexts, and make a point of taking criticism from feminist women seriously (even if we don’t always agree with every criticism).
Ampersand,
Thanks for stopping in!
I think your points are spot on. Taken to a logical extreme, my position paints men as quiet beasts of burden, and while that may be suitable punishment, it doesn’t necessarily help us advance the discourse as much, particularly amongst other men.
All I really want to do is make sure men who want to be called feminists have really thought through why and what their real motivations are. Men who automatically expect that, because they believe in “equal rights” or whatever, they automatically deserve the title of “feminist,” well, that suggests way too much entitlement. Folks like you and Charlie are clearly not in this under-reasoned group, but I worry that the majority of self-proclaimed male feminists are, and that they have at least a subconscious desire to kinda come in and try and push people around with their views. I’m not saying they would be successful, but it’s still annoying and damaging.
The patriarchy teaches men a sense of entitlement. I just want to show that we are owed nothing and that sometimes the expectation of our inclusion in something, even when we think we “deserve it,” may not always be for the reasons we’d like to believe. Feminism, more than anything, must be protected from the sense of male entitlement.
So I’m probably too extreme, but hopefully I make a few guys think through their own motivations a little. Tiny victory, if it even happens, I guess, but it’s something.
Hah! I believe men to be inherently sexist and I do mean all of them (you). The guy I’m dating had a hard time hearing that, but it makes perfect sense. I also make a point to add that I, being a white woman, am inherently racist because it’s very easy for me to wake up every morning and choose not to recognize my privileged life as such.
I honestly don’t think I’m going to raise a perfectly non-sexist son especially when, at age 4 I think it was, he cried when he was told he could be a girl if he wanted. (And I do mean sobbed.) I also have my ex-husband to contend with who keeps asking my son if he’s sure he wanted both his ears pierced.
But I do what I can. We just had a “I like bikini’s” dicussion Friday actually and I let him know why the whole whiplash neck action was bad, too. My thoughts? “Damn, he’s only 6.5 years old!”
I do agree that men can be active in the feminist movement but when it comes to speaking about it or representing it, women should be on the front lines. I think this is mostly because it is our voices that need to be heard. Many times I’ve been silenced in a mixed gendered group just because I’m a woman. So perhaps that means I agree with you more so than I had originally thought on the “feminist supporter” angle. It speaks more to the role men should play in a woman’s life I suppose.
A bit of anecdotal evidence: the guy I am currently dating has an annotated bibliography due in a few weeks. Because I am such a great influence (hehehe), he has chosen his topic to be Men in Feminism. I pointed him to a few resources but stressed that though your topic is men, it should be a woman’s voice you use as a critique and informant mainly because it is the women’s voices that should be heard; it’s a way to get the voices out to a wider audience instead of stifled as per our usual. I felt that if he were to use books/articles/blog entries written by men only, what would be the point of his original question if he wasn’t going to listen to the answer women had to give, even if our words are in print.
So anyway, I getcha but I prefer to give women credit. I for one would not allow a man to walk all over me just because he’s a man. In fact, I remember going to a Jeep dealership with a friend a year or so ago and the finance guy walked in all puffy and threatening-like. He was the kind of guy who takes up the entire space in the room; this one in particular was of average height and average weight. I’m sure you’ve encountered the kind. Me and those kind of guys don’t get along. At all. I just don’t think it would be that easy for a man to subsume a high rank in a movement primarily dominated by women. But, to contradict myself, I could also understand how, depending on the women and the demons/voices they are fighting inside their heads everyday, women would let the man lead because that’s what men are supposed to do.
Take out that ugly word “subsume” and substitute “attain” or “procure.” You know, something that actually makes sense.
I do think I should be allowed pretty much everywhere as long as I follow the rules, but blinded thogh I may be by privilege, I don’t think that’s an attribute of men, I think it’s an attribute of women. That makes sense if you’re saying that the existance of women-only spaces is the price we pay for being allowed to have men-only spaces. If I want to get rid of men-only spaces, can I call myself a feminist then?
I think you first need to ask why men need “men only” spaces, i know it seems like it’d be neccesary for parity but the active and constant oppression of women by men leads to a purpose for women only spaces to exist, opening up a space to men tends to, more often than not, lead to assholes abusing the privelage of inclusion, though that is not always so great a problem that it requires gender isolation, but it can sometimes be.
Add in the fact that most men only spaces exist for the sole purpose of further entrenching patriarchal privelage and oppression of women, and you start to see a very good, and very feminist, need to attack men only spaces.
though obviously men only spaces that do not have inherent or implicit patriarchal purposes are not neccesarily bad, and therefore do not neccesarily need to be challenged as institutions.
Several thoughts:
1) Your language choice assumes a feminism with a hierarchical structure in which there are leaders and followers. This is not necessarily warranted.
2) In the examples you give, it is not the label “feminist” that is the problem, but the actions taken by the person claiming the label. Another issue is the agenda of the media who select Ampersand and Ms. Flanagan as feminists to give a platform. Neither of these issues are addressed by a state wherein men do not consider themselves “feminist.”
3) Men must not take a back seat in feminism. The personal is political, and our own lives are the first arena in which feminist transformation must take place if it is to take place in the larger world. If we take a back seat in that arena, we’ve lost before we’ve started.
4) An active role in the back seat is more commonly known as a “back seat driver.” Not so useful.
5) Just as you had not considered the perspective of a feminist mother raising a son, you have not conisdered the perspective of a son raised by a feminist mother to be feminist — which is the perspective I grew up with. I’m fortunate enough to be a touch ahead of the curve in that regard, but there are only going to be more boys raised with an expectation of feminist consciousness and action. Even as we continue to possess and fight male privilege, we will not be coming to feminism from the perspective of someone for whom it is meaningful to distinguish between “feminist” and “feminist supporter.” I actually have a problem with the term “pro-feminist:” I don’t see how someone can seriously claim to be feminist and distance themself from it as if they’re supporting something that someone else is doing. It’s got to be something you are doing.
I have just seen that my language is imprecise. When I say
“The personal is political, and our own lives are the first arena in which feminist transformation must take place if it is to take place in the larger world,” I am referring to how we as men enact our feminism; and not feminism at large — which of course was transforming the world before any men signed on.
Dan,
Thanks for the input.
1) I am not assuming a rigid or explicit structure. Like any social movement, though, people will inevitably attempt to informally position themselves as feminist leaders, or at least experts on the subject.
Because I believe all but the smallest percentage of men have been patriarchally conditioned and benefitted from “the system” in ways they don’t always grasp, I don’t think very many men are in a position to be a fountain of feminist wisdom.
Even if they are, though, I think it behooves those men to label themselves as a pro-feminist or feminist supporter. It’s like a permanent disclaimer that says that you understand your limitations. However strongly you voice your opinions, you admit up front you haven’t experienced true sexism, that you could conceivably be missing something due to an accidental blind spot of privilege, and that you don’t presume to have all the answers.
This is not to say all feminists claim to have all the answers, either. But given how many men boldly claim the title of feminism while still being giant assholes and totally anti-feminist, I think there’s value in not being confused with them.
2) The actions of the people in question couldn’t co-opt feminism or confuse others about the movement if the label was understood to apply to a narrower group of people.
3) You misunderstand me. Let me be clear: assisting feminism should be at or near the top of the list for men. What I am saying is that they should not drive the movement. That’s what I mean by “men should take a back seat (albeit an active one) in feminism.” That phrase indicates we are not leaders in the movement, but it does not deny the importance of the movement in our lives.
4) That’s a conflation of analogies. Strip them away and I think my statements are coherent. We are obligated to be very active and also to admit our weaknesses which prevent us from taking control of the movement. We are to be committed followers. You may not agree, but clearly I am not advocating we be “back seat drivers.”
5a) I am still not convinced that being raised by a feminist makes a man a feminist. You still haven’t had to experience systemic sexism so you can only theorize about it. You can still obtain advantages in the world from others, even if you don’t want them and aren’t aware of them. And everything from TV to your teachers to your friends can have as much or more influence on you than your parents.
5b) Saying pro-feminist or feminist supporter _in no way_ distances you from the movement. It only implies deference to other people in the movement. That’s not the same as “partial feminist” or anything like that.
Since this thread came back to life from the carnival, I should restate some things for any new audience members:
a) I am not passionately trying to take away the title of feminist from men. I recognize the other side of the debate has some very legitimate points. However, I have yet to meet a man who, like me, doesn’t suffer from the occasional blind spot when it comes to privilege or conditioning. And I have never met a man who has been systemically discriminated against because of his gender. As such, I believe we would do well to admit these things. If we do, I think we should also admit those limitations will always require us to be deferential to others in the movement. The most succinct way to do both is with a label like feminist supporter.
b) I also recognize that, by my own criteria, I am not really the one to make this decision. I am just offering this as my opinion for consideration by all as part of what is sure to be a protracted debate. I will happily defer to any consensus achieved by the community.
c) This isn’t intended to be “holier than thou.” The entire point of my position is that I am capable of ugly weakness. I do happen to think I am far from alone, though. I think my flaws are flaws shared by a great many men, and we should admit them. By doing so, I am not trying to life myself above the fray. I am simply saying I believe we’re all playing in the same mud.
Personally, really don’t give a good goddam what people call themselves at the end of the day;
“by their fruits ye shall know them.”
Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
I think you underestimate the power of male privilege combined with passive aggression. In one manifestation, I’ve seen (and you can review by googling the soc.feminism archives) a man who identifies himself as pro-feminist rejecting several women’s identification as feminist because their feminist analysis contradicts his pro-feminist analysis. When I pointed out the inappropriateness of a man telling a woman whether she was feminist or not, he stuck to his guns and insisted that he was qualified to make such a call.
In private correspondance, he also described to me all the work he does “on behalf” of local feminist groups because they haven’t started doing the work that he decided needed doing — never dreaming that the reason that those feminists weren’t doing those tasks is that they didn’t feel it was a priority for them. He went so far as to contact my mother and manufacture a need he imagined she had so that he could offer to take care of it.[1]
He does not call it leadership, and he laments the fact that women haven’t stepped up the plate and taken the tasks that he thinks are so important to take care of off his hands; but the actions of this “pro-feminist” are nothing short of attempts to co-opt leadership, even in the face of women telling him they’re not interested.
Obviously, in his case at least, a “pro-feminist” identity has been neither necessary nor sufficient to address the very valid risks of cooptation and embracing of privilege that lead you to the term. I think the nature of male privilege and the struggle to migrate from a patriarchal system is such that it cannot be done succinctly.
[1] It was actually mom who pointed out to me that his MO where feminists were concerned was to decide they had a need that he could then undertake to meet.
Dan,
It’s not about stopping someone from saying stupid things. It’s about how those things will be perceived by others. I know his foolishness bothers me less coming from a “pro-feminist” than if he was claiming the full title of “feminist” and then trying to deny it to certain women. He’s opining but doing it from a supporting role, and that’s inherently less threatening.
Of course, if you could point out that a woman was doing harm and somehow reinforcing sexism, you can call yourself anything you want and still point out that woman isn’t necessarily a feminist, right?
Of course, if you could point out that a woman was doing harm and somehow reinforcing sexism, you can call yourself anything you want and still point out that woman isn’t necessarily a feminist, right?
Actually, no, I don’t see how a man — whether they identify as feminist or pro-feminist — can to set their judgement in place of a woman’s about whether they are actually feminist. Such an act is necessarily predicated on that man holding the attitude that he’s entitled to put his agency in place of hers, which undermines any claim he might make to being feminist or supporting feminism.
When I pointed out the inappropriateness of a man telling a woman whether she was feminist or not, he stuck to his guns and insisted that he was qualified to make such a call.
Well, he does, doesn’t he? I wouldn’t deprive any man of the right to tell Caitlin Flanagan or Camille Paglia that they’re not feminists.
So Caitlin Flanagan calls herself a feminist but argues for women being completely subservient to their husbands at all times. I cannot call her an anti-feminist or claim that she has no right to the title?
Just because I am a feminist supporter doesn’t mean I’m stupid… she’s clearly not feminist.
Ha. Jinx, marc.
Hah! Just tell me where to ship the Coke.
Just to say, I think “pro-feminist” sums it up nicely for me. Of course, I also like feminist supporter, though there is, however, this problem.
I’m just not up for calling myself a feminist anymore because I don’t think I have the understanding of the oppression in order to truly call myself that.
Hey, no fair. I want to be a feminist jockstrap.
Caitlin Flanagan calls herself a feminist…
According to Hillary Frey, Ms. Flanagan calls herself an anti-feminist. In the time I’m willing to devote to googling her, I can’t find a first-hand statement one way or the other.
But if she does call herself a feminist, you don’t get to tell her that she’s not. You might ask her what sort of feminist inquiry led her to her conclusions — but only if you’re prepared to hear the answer.[1] You might compare her analysis to other feminists’ analyses and point out where hers are problematic.[2] You might even say outright that her analysis is wrong, and she wouldn’t be the first feminist to get something wrong.
Deciding who is and is not a feminist in contradiction to their self-identity is, however, the very leadership and co-optation of feminism that you seek to avoid by calling yourself “pro-feminist.”
[1] Too often in feminist circles, the verb “question” is a euphamism for the verbs “silence” and “invalidate.”
[2] Such as why she’s placing the responsibility for hiring and adequately compensating nannies[3] entirely on the shoulders of professional women and not at all on those of their husbands.
[3] Which is, of course, in and of itself a perfectly valid criticism of those professional men and women who fail to examine and counter the white and class privilege that positions them to hire mostly poor, possibly immigrant, people of color for domestic labr for exploitative wages.