I got a message on Facebook from Delia, asking a familiar question:
I’ve got a good friend of mine, a man, who is absolutely supportive of feminist causes. But he really dislikes the word feminist, and prefers to call himself (and me) an “egalitarian”. To him, “feminist” sounds too exclusionary. I’ve tried to give him a good answer as to why focusing on women matters, but am not having much luck. Perhaps you could respond?
First off, let me recommend the indispensable Feminism 101 blog, a wonderful resource for answering all sorts of questions about feminism. Delia’s friend’s problem is addressed in this pithy answer, and it’s well worth the read.
I think it’s vital to “claim the name” of “feminist”. As the Feminism 101 site explains, refusing to use the term in favor of more general words like “egalitarian” obscures the reality of misogyny. While there’s nothing wrong with a commitment to egalitarianism as a principle, to use it to title an ideological perspective implies a false equivalence between the sexism that is directed towards men and that towards women. If someone were to say, “Oh, I believe blacks should be equal to whites, but I don’t feel comfortable calling myself an ‘anti-racist’; I’d rather just be an ‘equalist’”, we’d hear the statement for what it was: a refusal, probably motivated more by ignorance than malice, to accept the reality that black oppression in American history far outpaces that of whites.
As it says at Feminism 101, these are not mutually exclusive terms. One can be a feminist and believe in egalitarian principles. One can be a feminist and a Christian; one can be a feminist and a Republican, or a Democrat, or a defiant independent. To claim the name of feminism doesn’t mean rejecting all other names; it means, simply, that one acknowledges the reality of misogyny and one commits, in whatever way one can, to struggling against that ugly reality.
I call myself a feminist. I was once wont to call myself a “pro-feminist”, largely because in the 1980s, when I first began to do academic feminism, there was considerably more skepticism about men doing this work than there is today. As I’ve written before, younger feminists are much more willing to accept — and demand — men’s full participation in anti-sexist activism. A new generation of men has grown up, sons of mothers (and occasionally, fathers) who were steeped in feminism. The notion that a “man simply can’t get it” seems to be one that divides many feminists generationally, with those under 30 particularly unlikely to believe that essentialist view.
Men don’t get cookies merely for calling themselves feminists. But it is important that we do, at least as long as we are willing to strive to match our life to our language. We send a message that this disease of misogyny has done damage to us all, but especially to mothers and daughters, sisters and wives, partners and pupils and professional acquaintances. When we call ourselves feminists, we remind ourselves and others that the belief in the inferiority of women is the Great Crime. We renounce our complicity with that crime, and pledge — imperfectly — to work to build a world beyond misogyny. But we can’t build that world if we don’t accurately identify that which we fight for, and that which we fight against.
You’re on target.
Those who use words like “equalist” often are naive in various areas related to “oppressions”. Simple examples are people who indicate that they are Not against Gays/Lesbians at all, but don’t see why they need to “flaunt” their “sexuality” not recognizing how us Hetish folks flaunt our sexuality amongst Non-Straight folks all the time and how our ways are “dominant” and “oppressive”.
We’re all “equal” or we all should (simply) be “equal” denies the realities of people who aren’t “like us”. I remember the opening of the 1988 Men and Masculinity Conference where we were asked to close our eyes and walk “blind” – with our hands outward meeting others in the room. I was afraid (with good reason as it turned out) that I would inadvertently touch a woman’s breasts. For a man I met later his safety as one who’d been abused as a child – where blind touch Wasn’t Safe was his issue.
We can’t live in Fear of hurting others at all – and not be “out there”. We also should be aware of how we Can affect others who aren’t: White, Male, Het, Upper-Middle Class, Middle-Aged, Christian, Non-Differently Abled, etc. Listening to their Oppressions and really hearing them is Very Important!
For Us men – Women – are important to listen to! “Feminism” is important. “Racism” is important. “Homophobia” is important. Thanks!
Sorry, for all your experience I think you’re making a mistake. I can recall being on a discussion board a couple of years ago–a mostly British operation, now sadly gone–where the topic of men calling themselves, or being called, “feminists” came up and some of the women took pretty strong exception to it. On the other hand, others didn’t, and there were some hurt feelings over it. For the women who thought “feminist” should apply only to women, what they said, if I’m remembering accurately, was that they felt to be a feminist it was necessary to have lived as a woman, or in a sense to feel as well as know what it meant. That didn’t imply that they dismissed men’s ideas or were in any way hostile, and they welcomed men’s input on that board. But they had a strong instinct that to be a “feminist” one had to be a woman.
I think we men should exercise our minds to be as sensitive as possible, and avoid claiming too much for ourselves. There are already plenty of women who are skeptical about the motivation of any man who says he supports feminist goals, and I think calling ourselves “feminists” makes that situation worse and not better. Allies, supporters, sympathizers, those are all OK. But in general, all I’d say about my position would be “I think we need to take a hard look at gender roles and see if we can push society into the kind of state where everyone is equally free and equally respected”. I don’t need to give myself a name that others may not feel I have a right to.
The major thing we need to be sensitive about, in my humble opinion, is the possibility that women involved in feminist activism might see men joining in and claiming equality within feminism as being “more of the same” rather than something new. In other words, when men are involved, there could be an expectation that we’ll change the movement to reflect male values to the point where women won’t feel that it’s theirs any more. Yes, we’ll be saying all along how it’s equality we want–of course we will! But maybe by claiming less, we’ll look as if we can be trusted more.
Which isn’t to say that men who do indeed act as allies ought to back off and never say a thing out loud. Except for a tiny radical fringe, I’m sure feminists applaud men who’ll come out against sexism. But I think they might be even happier if those men have an idea of when to hold back and let it be primarily a movement of women.
Here’s the problem, John — you describe perfectly the situation I was familar with in the 80s and 90s. I’ve been to many feminist conferences in recent years, and found time and again younger feminists who not only were comfortable with men using the label but actively annoyed at the distancing effect “pro-feminist” had. To resist the name out of fear of appropriating what isn’t rightfully yours is a good instinct, but it also suggests that the struggle isn’t important to absolutely everyone, it allows us to shirk responsibility.
Again, this is a generational thing, but it’s become quite pronounced in recent years — which is why I’m comfortable using the label feminist, though always with explanation.
“As the Feminism 101 site explains, refusing to use the term in favor of more general words like ‘egalitarian’ obscures the reality of misogyny. While there’s nothing wrong with a commitment to egalitarianism as a principle, to use it to title an ideological perspective implies a false equivalence between the sexism that is directed towards men and that towards women.”
[sigh]
“If someone were to say, ‘Oh, I believe blacks should be equal to whites, but I don’t feel comfortable calling myself an “anti-racist”; I’d rather just be an “equalist”‘, we’d hear the statement for what it was: a refusal, probably motivated more by ignorance than malice, to accept the reality that black oppression in American history far outpaces that of whites.”
Yes, and that example doesn’t work as an analogy even a little bit. I’m equalist and anti-racist; in order for your analogy to be valid, people would have to be calling themselves, “anti-racism-towards-black-people,” since that phrase would have the same exclusionary tone that “feminist” does. An egalitarian is someone who believes in equal rights for everybody. I would think that a true feminist would welcome such a term, rather than take the Archie Bunker “equality is unfair!” approach. I guess the problem is that egalitarians work against discrimination even when the victim is someone you personally don’t wish to admit exists.
If someone were to say, “Oh, I believe blacks should be equal to whites, but I don’t feel comfortable calling myself an ‘anti-racist’; I’d rather just be an ‘equalist’â€, we’d hear the statement for what it was: a refusal, probably motivated more by ignorance than malice, to accept the reality that black oppression in American history far outpaces that of whites.
Or, if we weren’t completely in the left-wing tank, we might think that the person doesn’t want all the presumptive leftist baggage that comes along with the “anti-racist” tag.
“Male feminist” always seemed analogous to “teetotaller AA member” to me, as both individuals are tangentially relevant (that is to say, impediments) if at all to their group’s stated purpose. A non-drinker could interfere with an alcoholic friend’s sobriety by dragging them to restaurants with bars or whatnot, but changing that habit for the alcoholic’s sake isn’t grounds for entry into AA simply because the program isn’t about him, to co-opt a phrase. Likewise, a man ceasing to hold a female friend to, say, stricter sexual standards makes him fair, not feminist, as the latter isn’t about him.
Well Hugo, perhaps I have to admit that I’m older than you and my attitudes were formed in an earlier time: I can remember when some feminists were real militants and scorned any attempt at male participation. There aren’t too many ladies of that kind still involved! (And I wonder what the radicals of olden days–many of them still alive, of course–think now.) Whereas you’re constantly meeting student-aged people and it’s only right that you’re affected by them. Still, I think if you call yourself a “feminist” in front of a middle-aged veteran, you shouldn’t be surprised if she frowns, even if she clearly recognizes you as being on the side of good rather than evil. As you’ve said, it could well be a generational thing.
For the women who thought “feminist†should apply only to women, what they said, if I’m remembering accurately, was that they felt to be a feminist it was necessary to have lived as a woman, or in a sense to feel as well as know what it meant.
I hate that argument, because it plays right into the gender binary. It ignores the exploration of gender and sex that’s so important to feminism. You can be invested in exploding rigid gender norms and boxes without actually fitting into one of those boxes.
I am a feminist where feminism equals human rights activism. I am not a feminist when it’s about structurally flawed epistemological positions. Thus, I wouldn’t call myself feminist in the context at hand, as, regardles of what feminism actually means in a specific context, it implies a gynocentrism that I find more than problematic as an epistemological approach. In practice, yes. In theory. No. I guess that lets me agree with Delia’s friend.
What Sam said.
Thanks for hitting on this issue; it is a huge one on my campus which has a very large and vocal Women’s Studies department (though the naming of an Academic discipline is a different conversation entirely). Your argument about the non-exclusivity of the term feminist dispels most of my problems with the the term. If I can be a feminist and a specific activist against a history of discrimination against women, and simultaneously be a proponent of gender-equality in general, then I am all for it. It is when feminism is treated as a blanket label for all gender issues that I see problems.
There is, however, a gaping flaw in this argument when in the first paragraph you equate use of the term feminist to use of the term “anti-racist.” This is entirely incorrect, as feminism is another level of specificity towards a group, and “anti-racism” is ideologically specific but demographically broad. You obliquely hit upon the crux of the issue here, because you seem to find it entirely acceptable to be an anti-racist (which does not specifically acknowledge the fact, for example, that racism against blacks, or Native Americans has been proportionally greater than that against other groups) rather than an “african-ist” or some other term that does not truly exist in common speech, but you do not find it acceptable to be similarly broad in the case of sexism. The term “anti-sexist” only appears once in his piece, and it is in reference to action, not as a label for a person or a belief.
I can think of a few possible arguments for these separate standards for language between issues of race, and issues of sex, but I’m interested in your defense of it, because I would be extremely wary of establishing these divided standards. It is perhaps true that active and subversive racism in American and world history has been directed towards a broad enough spectrum of groups that a general “anti racist” is acceptable, whereas sexism is perceived as having been overwhelmingly perpetrated as flowing one way between two groups. The problem with this however, is that it perhaps imposes a false dichotomy upon issues of sexism, entirely ignoring the experiences of the transgender community, among others that do not fit in that binary depiction.