Silly question maybe - can a man be a feminist?

[biryani]

After a few glasses last night I got into a discussion with a male aqcuaintance about childcare etc. This man claims he's a feminist because he shares childcare etc with his wife, and has read Naomi Woolf and Andrea Dworkin. I said something like " you can't be a feminist because you're a man!", meaning that feminism arises out of a specifically female take on the world and that a man cannot experience this, being a man, and therefore cannot be a feminist as such although he may empathise and understand female issues.

now sober, I'm not sure. Who's right?

DaisyHayes wrote "It's not women's responsibility to make men feel welcome in feminism"

Indeed.

It is men's responsibility to make women feel welcome in every place on Earth outside feminism.

I want to run two scenarios by you - bear with me

Scenario One

Feminist-enthused Male Person: I love the idea of equality! I'm a feminist! What can I do to promote feminism?
Feminist: Actually, because of the history of men's subjugation of women, we're asking men like you to call themselves pro-feminist, or feminist-allied. This makes sure that the ownership of the women's movement remains with women. And we don't end up with a mother's Union situation. See what I mean?
Feminist-enthused Male Person: Sure, I get you - that makes sense, given how male privilege works. Hard not to get what I want - but hey, it's not about me, it's about the struggle, right?
Feminist: Right!

[they high five enthusiastically and begin overturning the patriarchy]

Scenario Two:

Feminist-enthused Male Person: I love the idea of equality! I'm a feminist! What can I do to promote feminism?
Feminist: Actually, because of the history of men's subjugation of women, we're asking men like you to call themselves pro-feminist, or feminist-allied. This makes sure that the ownership of the women's movement remains with women. And we don't end up with a mother's Union situation. See what I mean?
Feminist-enthused Male Person: That's so oppresive of you! And mean! And Shrill! How can you expect men to care about women's issues if you don't let them dictate everything about how women's issues should be handled? Screw this 'equality for all' nonsense, I'm going to sulk and pout and fling my toys around, probably in a long-lasting and draining and derailing manner! It's about ME, damnit!
Feminist: siiigh.

see where I'm going with this?
None of the really feminist-enthused men that I know give a stuff about whether they'd rather call themselves feminist or pro-feminist. Because they get that feminism has to be female-led, and that whatever the noun is, the men who want to promote feminism have good and important work to do. In short, the truly feminist men I know (and I know precious few, so I'm jealous of all these feminist men everyone knows so well!) know that it's not about them.

Do those of you so keen to fight the male corner in this argument, actually think that equality has already been achieved between men and women? If so, then I can see your reasoning. However, I don't think equality has been achieved (hence why I am a feminist) so men and women are working off from different ends of the power dynamics. And that is the bit that makes the difference in this argument.

Feminism is a space where women get to call the shots. The rest of the world men do (exaggeration I know but you get the drift). So why would we want, in the only arena where we (as a group) have some power and authority want to devolve that to men? Using the term pro-feminist indicates that support is expected from them. Using the term feminist means that they are equal to us in this space, and I don't think that should be the case. And to quote blackcurrants: it's not about them.

I don't see myself as fighting the male corner. I see myself as suggesting that if we want equality we should act in a way that is consistent with equality, and if people share the values of feminism then they should be called feminists. Not just "allowed to call themselves" but also "called by us".

"Can men/women do/be XXXXXXXX?"
"No, only women/men can do/be XXXXXXXX."

^^ In my book anything that goes like that is against the whole point for feminism.

I'm not saying that men should run feminism (assuming it is run at all), I am saying that if feminism represents a shared set of beliefs and values then anyone who shares those beliefs and values should be called a feminist.

Trillian - I think that is a position that we can afford to take once equality has been achieved (but then there would be no need for feminism so it is a bit academic!).

The other issue with that stance is how can they possibly have the same values, when they are in the position of privelege? Naturally they look at the world from that perspective rather than the oppressed perspective. They can empathise, but they aren't in the position of having to get past the fact that you are female before getting treated the same. So they don't have the same needs and desires as women in that respect.

Why are you so uncomfortable with the premise that men should defer to the support role rather than have an equal say and be able to impose their ideas in a feminist political arena? Do you think that this promotes the idea that women are "better" than men? Because that is not what it is about. It is more a case of women having more to lose than men?

Sorry errant question mark at the end there!

TrilllianAstra wrote - "I'm not saying that men should run feminism"

Why not? If, as you suggest, men can be every bit as feminist as women, why do you appear to see leadership of feminism by men as problematic?

I don't see "leadership" of feminism by anyone as anything because I don't particularly see it being led. I was responding to the fear that some posters seem to have that if we allow men to be feminists they will try to take it over.

I like the comparison to the abolition of slavery. One can be an abolitionist without ever having been a slave. You do not have to have experienced a thing directly to want to be a part of the movement to get rid of it.

If a man is not a feminist because he has never directly experienced sexism (although sexism will affect his life plenty even if it is not directed at him, and plenty of men do suffer personally as a result of living in s sexist society) does that mean I am a less-good feminist because I have never been raped, or because I have not lost out on a job for being female, or because I have not experienced sexual harrassment at work? Is there a sliding scale of feminism, whereby the best feminists are those who have experienced the worst consequences of a sexist world?

If the only difference between a feminist woman and a pro-feminist man is that one is a woman and the other is a man then that is sexism.

Feminists are against sexism.

See the problem? That is it. That is 100% of my problem.

Trillian you are not taking into account the power dynamic that is already in existence.

To be an abolitionist as a white man, you can stop using slaves. You wouldn't tell a slave how to stop being one, you would enable that to happen. As a pro-feminist you can stop using porn, stop making sexist comments, challenging others etc i.e. enabling women to become more equal. You don't tell them what they should be doing.

And a woman being sexist to a man is very different from the other way round, again due to the power dynamic in action.

Where did I say that men should tell women what to do? This is all part of the fear of men that seems to pervade the "men can't be feminists" argument. What makes you think that men who support equality are the sort of people who would try to take over?

To be an abolitionist you stop using slaves, you tell other people to stop using slaves, and you try to help slaves escape slavery. And you are an abolitionist. There isn't a different word for it.

a woman being sexist to a man is very different from the other way round, again due to the power dynamic in action Again, I didn't say that women are sexist to men and that's as bad as men being sexist to women. I said that society is sexist and everyone suffers because of it. Little boys being teased or told to "man up" when they like "girly" toys, the assumption that any man who wants to work with children is a pervert, mocking jokes towards male nurses. It's not as bad as what happens to women but the world would be better for everyone if it were less sexist.

I am somewhat confused by the assumption that 'allowing' a man to call himself a feminist equates to offering him leadership of the good ship Feminism, or that he would automatically start telling all women how to be less oppressed rather than help tackle that oppression himself.

Maybe I have misunderstood feminism and it is actually a girls club where we plot to take over the world. I always thought it was about seeking equality for the sexes and the realisation that for that to happen, women have to be brought up to the level of privilege that men have, not seek to further the gender divide or drag men down to the same level of oppression we experience.

The heat may have addled my brain though, so I am happy to be corrected if my view of treating pople differently because of what is between their legs is wrong though.

Is part of the issue that there are several strands to feminism? There is a strand that is about anti sexism, changing laws, policies, external structures of power and a strand that is about liberation, including CR and transformation of personal structures of thinking.

Men can be anti-sexist, which is one strand of feminism, but the bit that is about liberation is at least in part about personal conciousness, which they can't share. There is work that men need to do about their structures of thought, but it is different work to do with recognising their own privilege.

With the anti-racism comparison it is a bit like the difference between civil rights campaigns and the black power movement. White people can be part of one (but should not assume privilege and take over leadership) but not really part of the other. The thing is we use the same term, feminism, for both things. (and not everyone who calls themselves a feminist is interested in/comfortable with the second)

It's an interesting thread because i had this discussion with DH the other night - he was asking what a man should call himself if he was pro-feminist. I said that some feminists preferred the term pro-feminist men, and others were happy for men to call themselves feminist. So it was probably best to call himself a pro feminist man. Which he didn't feel the need to complain about.

Exactly. There is an important role for women only spaces (and another role for mixed groups). A key test for me of whether a man is really pro-feminist, or just hoping to impress/pull is whether he respects women only space and doesn't kick off about feeling left out.

I also think that white feminists need to respect the need for Black and Minority Ethnic women to organise seperately as well as alongside white women. And I know some white feminists (including some who are very vocal about women only space) who don't always respect that.

I don't think it is as big an issue as men not wanting to be left out, but I have seen it happen more than once.

on a very speedy scroll up this quite long thread, and knowing this isn't very scientific, there have been only 4 men posting on this thread, and only one of them has wished to label themselves as being a feminist. that was dadof2 I think.

maybe we aren't as a gender, as bothered about being called 'feminist' as one may consider.

To be honest I don't think most men think about it at all!

Those that do are either pro-feminist men who know enough about feminism to be concerned about the language they use, or a (hopefully smaller) group who just don't like being told that there may be a club they can't join.

SunshineToast you have articulated what I was really trying to get at - in that the role of men in feminism is different to that of a woman. Thank you.

I feel quite strongly that feminism should have "safe spaces" for women only to discuss things and the same applies to any oppressed group.

Interesting that you noticed that Pan as I was going to make the same comment!

Christ almighty: if I ever had any time for the idea of male feminists, the 'male feminists' on this thread have killed it. Thanks guys for pandering to my prejudices and thanks all, especially Daisy, for some awesome posts.

Sunshine: you put into words what I have been thinking after reading this thread. Thank you. It also helped with a parallel thought process I am engaged on in regards to other related issues in the indigenous\mestizo\white debate in Latin American feminism. So thanks again.
(?mestizo? means a mix of European and indigenous race).

thank you