Stay up-to-date via RSS!

I am just some dude who very much wants to help fight the external and internal patriarchal corruption I see. I am no feminism expert — in fact I am of the mind that inherently I cannot be and have explicitly and carefully tried to explain my reasons for that.

But holy crap is that exhausting.

The topic of feminism is of such critical importance, and all people who care about it have such deep investment in it and in thoroughly promoting it the “right way” that it’s quite easy to spend several hours collecting your thoughts on some aspect of the movement and still accidentally offend someone or leave one or two vague points hanging out there somewhere for negative interpretation.

I think that’s completely fair, mind you. Nobody is whining about unreasonable treatment here. All I mean to say is that once you put something out there, a lot of people who are smarter than you and know more than you on the subject are going to have a lot to say about it. Maybe this means I should just keep my yapper shut. Still, even a supporter might be able to offer some helpful perspective from time to time.

For example, I have sometimes caught myself being subtly influenced by patriarchal conditioning. Maybe it’s a brief pang of jealousy that hints at some ridiculous notion of female possession — or maybe it’s the expectation that if I do and say and act on all the right feminist principles I ought to be praised for doing “the right thing” (as though I have graciously chosen to abdicate the patriarchal throne in some bullshit noble gesture) even though women often receive only derision and marginalization when they stand up for “the right thing” — but whatever the particular instance, it scares the crap out of me. I beat it back as soon as I notice it, and I like to think it doesn’t come around my psyche too often, but it does pop up. I think that’s a narrative worth sharing, and I think it bears on the limitations men face in the membership debate (which has been my only feminist topic of note thus far). Maybe there are perfect feminist men out there, or as perfect as any man or woman can be while operating within the patriarchy, but I can also imagine those men being the most comfortable with accepting strictly a supporting role. That role wouldn’t mean any less work, just less chance to fuck up the direction of the cause.

Damn. There I go again, opining on the subject.

All I mean to say in this rambling post is this:

1) Whenever I write on the topic of feminism, I am only offering my opinions, and I recognize that while I may feel somewhat strongly about some of them, I will never, ever profess to be an expert or leader or policy dictator on the subject, even if the inclusion of men as feminists is someday universally accepted by the community.
2) I know that even though I am just opining on the subject from a limited perspective, I have no less responsibility to be thorough and put forth only precise, well-thought-out positions or suggestions. If I fuck that up, I rightly deserve a crack on the noggin. Though I am no expert and (hopefully) my heart is in the right place, I am not excused from buffoonery.
3) Writing on this subject has only served to increase my state of awe and admiration for feminist scholars/bloggers and feminist supporters who’ve made valuable contributions. Someday I hope to grow into one of the latter.

Charlie 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.