« My New Favorite Literary Mag | Home | Social Realism »
February 7, 2006
Is Feminism a Woman-Only Movement?
John at Mind on Fire has posted the following set of questions on his blog:
In practical terms, is feminism a woman-only movement? Are feminist forums essentially female forums? Is it possible to discuss feminism as a female and male issue, as a joint concern of both men and women? Is there a place for men in feminism?
I posted a response to John's questions on his blog, and I'm going to include my response here as well. Here goes:
First, I believe that men should identify themselves as feminists, and work to improve the lives of women, advance the cause of women's rights, and fight sexism; that white people must fight racism and work to improve the lives of people of color; that straight people need to fight homophobia and support gay rights; that rich people need to care about poor people; that human beings need to work for the humane treatment of animals, and so on. Everyone needs to be on the side of justice. No righteous cause (and I use that term advisedly) ever truly succeeds until even those who benefit from an unjust system begin to work to overthrow it. Slavery would still exist were it not for the efforts of those who were NOT slaves.
Re: doing feminist theory in academia--there are plenty of male academics who work on feminism and gender theory. I think you're probably going to face an uphill battle, just as white people who do race theory face some suspicion. I don't, however, think that's a reason not to do it. I realize I am not in your department, and I have only heard a little of the work you've done on feminism, but I take you pretty seriously: I appreciate your academic work on and your personal commitment to feminism, and as you will (I hope) attest, I have encouraged and defended both.
As was recently discussed in the comments on Mellencamp, the Game here on SPA, I feel grief and pain when men I consider enlightened and humane refuse to identify themselves as feminists. And as you and I have discussed, and as I have discussed on my blog, I heartily applaud the decision by any man (but especially Mormon men and men I like) to embrace the cause of feminism. I hope people will go to my blog and check out the archives for the things I've written about Mormon male feminists--there's quite a bit. I was delighted to see the panel on the topic at Sunstone last August, and hope that it will be a recurring panel. And I am grateful for the efforts of men in the past who worked for women's rights--the world is a better place for women not only because of Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan, but John Stewart Mill (see in particular his essay The Subjection of Women.)
But since your entry here arises in part from comments I made on another blog, let me create an analogy that I hope illustrates why I objected when a married man asked a question in a feminist forum about whether or not Mormon men who are single suffer as much from their single status as Mormon women who are single--and then answered his own question in the affirmative, though he did acknowledge that although men's pain was as great as women's, there seemed to be more women who had the problem--i.e., there are more old maids in the Mormon church than old bachelors. And let me also explain why I was disappointed when several women rushed to support him.
Let's say there's a forum devoted primarily to discussing the concerns of black people in the US, although people of any race are welcome to participate. And a discussion arises about poverty. And a comfortably situated white person comes along and asks, "Do you think white people suffer as much as black people under the conditions of poverty? I know both black and white people who've really struggled, so I think it's the same emotionally, though I admit there are more poor black people than poor white people."
Well, gee! I have an adequate grasp of the obvious, and I'm pretty sure it sucks to be poor, no matter what color your skin is. But the fact of the matter is, I've never been truly poor; moreover I've never been black and poor, never felt several centuries of cultural oppression that have conspired to make poverty particularly acute in the black community, never faced a particular sort of hopelessness in terms of dealing with the problem of basic subsistence.
And let's imagine that in this forum, once this question has been posed, several of the black people immediately rush to say, "Wow, I bet poverty IS really bad for white people!" instead of, "Yeah, it's bad for white people too, but, uh, why are you bringing it up here, and why are you bringing it up in this particular way?" At that point, I would have to question not only the motives of the person who posed the question, but the motives of the people who responded as well--it would seem to me that ultimately, this group was more about placating white people, reassuring them that their egos need not be threatened by this little racially oriented forum, than about doing what it had actually stated as its mission.
And perhaps if I were truly wise, I'd just leave these people to their foolishness--god knows I've seen this situation before, and god knows I've seen so little change in the past when I've done this--but somehow, I actually still care about both feminism and Mormonism, and I just can't stop myself from saying, "Um, uh, not to be rude or anything, but, you know, this sounds like complete and utter bullshit to me."
Because the fact of the matter is, I have neither patience nor respect for such things. I say to men who claim they want to talk about feminism, TALK ABOUT FEMINISM! The point is this: men as a collective are the recipients and wielders of privilege and power, and if that's going to change and we're going to achieve gender equality, you've got to be willing to give up some of that privilege and power, so START NOW. Set aside some of your concerns in the short term, and be willing to relinquish some of your privilege for eternity. Because that's what has to happen for gender equality to happen: those with power have to give some of it up.
And for god's sake, don't expect a pat on the back just because you hang out with women who call themselves feminists. Put your money where your mouth is--which in some cases, means shutting the hell up about your masculine concerns.
Posted by holly at February 7, 2006 10:01 AM
Well said, Holly. When a man asks me why women's issues should concern him, I inquire if he has a mother. :)
The experience of this post has me thinking that I need to do a series of posts exploring feminism. Thanks for being (really) involved in the discussion--it's been a learning experience for me, and hopefully for others.
Hey, I just followed a link from The Happy Feminist over to this post, and I wanted to drop you a line and say that I really like what you had to say, here. Thanks for putting it so well... I think I'll be posting a link of my own.
"Slavery would still exist were it not for the efforts of those who were NOT slaves."
I really, really have to disagree with this statement.
It's far too presumptuous.
That said, I think / hope what you intend to say is that
social change has and will continue to come about with
the solidarity and effort and investment of some within
the "priviledged" classes... Or something to that effect?
you are also dismissing cultural factors that face people
of colour, that do not face "white" people - even when
both are composing the same socio-economic
stratasphere.
hot potatoe. hot potatoe.
Disagree with me on what grounds, Ricia? Far too presumptuous how? You're telling me that the work of abolitionists who were born free (no matter what their color) made absolutely no difference in the fight to end slavery? I disagree with that idea because it is demonstrably wrong.
Instead of presuming to figure out what I'm saying and encapsulating it with a fairly familiar slogan, look at the sentence preceeding the one you object to: "No righteous cause (and I use that term advisedly) ever truly succeeds until even those who benefit from an unjust system begin to work to overthrow it."
I welcome disagreement on my blog if it actually leads to insight, but repeating "hot potatoe" doesn't accomplish that. Pony up with something of substance to say, or comment someplace else.
i would have, and i will.. but moving too fast to be comprehensive right now.. i'll come back though and explain myself.
Sorry about that Holly. I've been in such chaos lately, the head to the finger tips I go typing without further consideration.
I agree with the underlaying principals, I believe this post reflects. Because I know me, and I can see we have some common perspectives, I assumed that you would immediately recognise what I was refering to and why... My "bad". Not yours... You, don't "know" me.
It often irks me to 'hear' folks deducing from history, what "IS" and "must be" true.
This statement: "Slavery would still exist were it not for the efforts of those who were NOT slaves."
Is akin to something like this: "there has always been war and therefore it is natural for human's to participate in war" OR "women wouldn't have equal rights if men didn't give it to them".. so on and so forth.
There is so much to argue about in those statements. (what is war, how it is defined, what actually motivates war, what is gained and are the benefits of war? for eg).
Suggesting that African Americans would not have seen the civil rights movement, for eg, had it not been for the prior Abolitionist Movement... Is standing on shaky ground (the hot pototoe reference).
Abolitionists, in my opinion, stood on the "right side of history", no more and no less.
I don't disagree with your position on the matter of inclusion and solidarity... I just had a knee jerk response to your approach to the issue.
Ricia--thanks for coming back and clarifying your position. I understand where you're coming from--I'd be annoyed if I thought someone was saying those things as well.