God knows I have had my dealings with "feminist" men who turn out to embrace every hackneyed Paglia-esque anti-feminism argument that comes their way, so I am a bit leery of men who self-identify as feminists. In my own experience, these men are generally the worst of the worst-- not only misogynist pigs, but because they consider themselves enlightened, completely uneducatable. They generally either genuinely and misguidedly believe that they're feminists (without having done any bit of thinking about what that means or how it translates into making change in their own lives) or they're interested in gaining personally or professionally by the association.
**HOWEVER** I recognize that feminsim as a global movement will never get beyond ye olde "battle of the sexes" paradigm until its accessible AND open to anyone. I WANT to live in a world where feminism isn't a women-only club. I WANT to know men who are geniuinely feminist or pro-feminist (I know a couple, but ironically neither calls himself a feminist.)
The real question to me is not what they can call themselves (thought that is interesting) but can they BE feminists? I think they can, to a point, but as you say they must be willing to listen and step down. They will never be the leaders in the movement, but I think they could be some valuable followers.
But right this moment I'd be more excited if there were more young women calling themselves (and being) feminists.

One problem wiht "pro-feminist" is that it marks the user as a guy who disclaims that men should use the term "feminist," which in turn often signals allegience to radical feminism specifically (since radfems are the primary proponents of the notion that men cannot truly be feminists). For that reason, I won't identify as pro-feminist. Good arguments have been put forward by guys like Punkass Marc and Chris Clarke as to why they won't identify as feminist, and I respect those guys a lot, but I respectfully disagree.

Enough (female-identified) feminists that I know like men who identify as feminists to *not* call themselves pro-feminist that I feel comfortable in many circles calling myself a feminist. I try to tailor that to the context, however; if people I want to work on feminist ideals with don't like my calling myself a feminist, I'll refrain.

Over at Feminist Allies, we manage to coexist even though some of us like 'pro-feminist' or 'feminist ally' better than 'feminist' to describe men who act as people who subscribe to feminist ideals of various types.

by my definition of feminism, men can be feminists. that is, they can work to improve women's lives. by the bumper sticker definition, men can be feminists; that is, they can believe that women are people.

such men are rare (i agree that the self-identifiers are questionable), but if you find one, best to treat him well.

I'm a feminist and my boyfriend respects that, trying his best to live up to those ideals (ie, treating all people equally, respecting women and their bodies, doing his share of housework, etc.) but now that I think of it, I don't recall him ever explicitly calling himself a feminist. I think he'd be more comfortable with "feminist ally".

Personally, I care more about what men are calling me then what they're calling themselves. However, a nice umbrella term for all those forward thinking, good men to unite under could be helpful, just as the word "feminism" has historically helped women band together for a common cause.

I like punkass marc's phrase "feminist supporter." I've begun to use it because I agree with people that a guy saying he's a feminist kind of falls flat in that he has no real idea what the oppression is like from the oppressed point of view. Then again, labels tend to boggle me and I don't really care about what I'm called, just that I believe in treating everyone like they are people, same as me.

My husband calls himself an "equalist", a means of expressing that he supports the feminist movement and also supports the idea of changing traditional views of "masculinity" to eliminate chauvenism (as an example: I think he was actually more worked up about the Joe Francis thing than I was. He's that bastard's target demographic, and he literally wanted to barf up most of his internal organs after reading Hoffman's article)... I have some friends whose boyfriends/husbands call themselves feminists. I don't find it terribly bothersome, but I think that's becuase these particular men are more interested in listening and learning than "here's what I think the feminist movement should do".

Feminism is, it seems, meant to be a movement specifically for and about women. As such, it seems reasonable to leave it to women, with men providing support, but not membership.

Men have their own gender issues to deal with, but these issues not feminist. For example, I got yelled at a bit on this site a while ago for responding to an article on sexual assault with the whole "men get sexually assaulted too" thing. Now I know that was a mistake since it wasn't an article about sexual assault in general, but about how it affects women specifically.

But resolving gender issues as they relate to men, as well as women, is often key to purely feminist goals as well.

For example, a key to helping women become more successful in the workplace is getting more men to play an equal role at home, and that, in many ways, is a gender issue relating specifically to men, and men alone, dealing with the way they are socialized, and the stereotypes and pressures they face.

But since discussing such issues clearly gets away from the point of feminism as talking about women and women's issues, it is probably better to leave that to a separate social movement -- one that would be pro-feminist, but not a part of feminism, one that would include both men and women in both leadership and support positions, and would discuss gender inequality more generally, form both male and female perspectives at once, rather than from a female-only perspective.

I think participating in such a broader movement would be the best way for men to talk about gender issues, and to help feminism, rather than becoming feminists themselves.

Feminism seems, from what I am learning, to have been meant as a 'space' for women to talk about challenges they face in a sexist society with other women, and find ways to overcome them, as women. Men, having a different social perspective, firstly, can only contribute so much, and secondly, risk unintentionally moving feminism away from its identity as a movement by and for women, with their very presence, if not with their discussion. It would prevent feminism from being a for-women space.

Men would be much better able to contribue to the more general fight against gender inequality through a movement that considers both men's and women's issues and perspectives. Also, they would be able to talk about gender issues that affect them, as well as those that affect women, without fear of unintentionally de-railing the discussion, which would provide men with a more rewarding experience.

So I think the best solution in theory would be to have men who are members of a second, broader movement, which would work together with feminism, but also be organized separately from it, and would have its own perspective. Then men would really be pro-feminist, not feminist, and would support feminism, but not from within feminism. They would be full-fledged and central members, along with women (who may or may not also be feminist) of a movement symbiotic with feminism instead.

That way feminism would remain a movement where women can support each other and know that they are being heard by other women, without worrying about having to fight against being drowned out by male discussion even in their own movement. But at the same time, men would be able to contribute from their own point of view, also helping advance purely feminist goals in the process. And through co-operation, the two movements would be much more effective, and much more inclusive, than feminism alone could ever be.

That's just my opinion, which I arrived at only recently, when I began to think of feminism less as a movement that discusses gender inequality generally, and more as a movement that discusses women and women's perspecives specifically. Until then, I would have called myself a feminist. Now I think of myself more as pro-feminist.

But maybe I got it all wrong again and am neither. I don't know; but this is what seems to make sense to me.

Thomas,

Thanks for mentioning me in the same breath as Chris Clarke! That is no small compliment.

It's true that I have advanced a couple of reasons why I don't think a guy should call himself a feminist. I should make clear, though, that I am not frothing at the mouth over the issue. I see both sides, and I think the matter is far from settled.

At the heart of my arguments are 2 points:

1) I think if you call yourself a "feminist," you are attempting to claim full membership in the movement. This includes the capacity to assume a leadership role. At the very least, you are claiming that your positions/opinions ought to count as much as any other.

Now, maybe you disagree with that idea. I certainly see the difference between saying you are a "feminist" and saying you are a "feminist leader." But I believe that claiming to be the former means you have the potential to claim the latter.

2) I don't think men make good feminist leaders, and I don't think men should be in a position to lead the movement. Nearly all men have been deeply conditioned by patriarchal ideas from an early age. While many of us are trying to do something about it, the truth is that this runs pretty deep and manifests itself in ways we often don't even realize. It's true that women have also been conditioned, but men have been taught the conquering mentality, and I think it serves us well to resist that temptation. What better way to do that than willingly position yourself in a permanent support role? That's why I like "feminist supporter" or "pro-feminist." It implies total connection with the idealogy but also deference to others to set the agenda.

In no way do I believe that men would "take over" feminism, nor that women wouldn't be strong enough to fend off guys trying to do so. But why deal with the hassle of it?

The ironic part is that I have said several times that, because of my position on the matter, I will defer to the broader feminist community on this matter just like any other. So if there is consensus that I can call myself a feminist, then I will accept that. But I feel there is tremendous real and symbolic value in a guy applying a deferential label to himself.

Also, I have been accused of "holier than thou"-dom with this attitude. However, I have repeatedly pointed out my own failings in my attempts to live and think like a feminist. I deeply believe in my own weakness. It's why I hold this position. Maybe I am holding other guys accountable for my failings; maybe there are flawless feminist men out there. But I doubt it, and that's why I prefer the deferential role.

Some folks give me the "but here you are _dictating policy_ that men be deferential," and to that I can only say I am just trying to offer my input and perspective. As I said before, I defer to the community to validate or invalidate it over time.

It seems to me that the labels we use are not the correct tool to emphasize the fact that we all have different experiences. I mean, of course we do. Feminism is a way of seeing the world, and it has a hugely-varied group of adherents. Saying you're "a feminist" does not mean that you are feminism, but that you are one of many different feminists. It's a jumping-off point that can lead us into understanding or acknowledging our different experiences, but I don't think a modifying prefix is really sufficient for telling people what they need to know about your perspective.

long time reader, first time poster.

this is a very complicated issue to me. also one that hits close to home. i'm (unfortunately) a man. and i'm a radical, misandrist feminist. on the one hand, i certainly think anyone should be able to be able to identify as feminist because to me, at the end of the day, it's just a term that means you support gender equality, hate the patriarchy, etc.

on the other hand, men ARE idiots. and i can't STAND those jerks who say they're "feminists" just so the cute girl in the sleater-kinney shirt might talk to them. so i think if a man is going to call himself a feminist, he's got to prove it. the feminist community is obviously one in which men have to earn their respect and trust.

this is also is a reminder that feminism itself means different things to different people. there is no one concept, in this country especially, that is more misunderstood than feminism. if it means you're for equality of ALL kinds, then of course some from the male left are going to use it to say that they're anti-racist, anti-homophobia, etc. for example, as an anarcha-feminsit, i think these third-wave/"lipstick" feminist WOMEN are about as much feminist as those in the pandering male left.

but this is not a contest. and i won't go off on that rant.

men just aren't responsible enough, though. just feels like "feminist" is a phrase they'll use to out-liberal one another. i wouldn't worry about it being co-opted, though.

"yeah, i consider myself a feminst. i took a week of a women's studies course once...". guh. i would say that considering oneself a feminst is better than considering oneself a misogynist, but so many of these "self-identified" feminist men are completely clueless hypocrites serving some kind of ulterior motive. even if it means "feminist" is just something they say to feel better about themselves.

it's a tough issue. and i still don't know exactly how i feel. sorry if that was too long.

jer, there are a lot of idiotic women out there, too. This all seems like the same old "you're not feminist enough" debate, but with the addition of testicles.

Worrying that men would take over feminism seems a bit sexist to me... as though men are all aggressive and have to be leaders.

In my opinion, "feminism" is really about aiming for equal opportunities and status for all people, regardless of gender--so by that definition, a man can be a feminist. I've seen men discriminated against for their gender: for instance, many daycares refuse to hire men because they don't want to make parents uncomfortable--the mindset seems to be that it's okay for a woman to change a little boy's diaper, but if a man changes a little girl's diaper, he's clearly thinking about raping her.

Male and female alike, we're victims of a patriarchal society, even if the toll is greater for women. I think it's important for men to be a part of the feminist movement because it benefits them as much as us, at least in terms of having the opportunity to experience the world as an individual, rather than a member of a very specific and limited gender group.

I've been caling myself a feminist since I was a teen. When I first met my husband, he definitely had a progressive attitude towards women, but he had never really thought about feminism as an ideology or an identity. I noticed the shift - when he began to really understand and internalize the obstacles that women still face, that's when he actually began to call himself a feminist. As it became a part of his everyday life & actions to support and promote feminism, he found that he identified as a feminist. This pleases me because it sets a noticable and unignorable example for his friends & coworkers.

I hear the critisms of the poser types, and wince a little. I know these folks, and they trouble the heck out of me. And i also know it's on me to differentiate myself from them...

But i don't know that i'm really set on doing so through naming. Whatever the new term is, the posers will find it too. And they'll start using it. What we call ourselves should reflect a conscious reflection on our place in the movement...but i don't know that we can secure our space through that naming process.

i tend to be pretty flexible about naming, though my default preference is to call myself a feminist. i will alter that for certain spaces upon request. as in, don't be an asshole by refusing to discuss and if necessary change your language.

the only stuff i can't stand is the naming that erases the primacy of the oppresion of women, or risks conflation with "reverse discrimination" claims from the MRA types. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!

I do not think that you have to be a woman to believe in and promote the equality of the sexes.

one of the reasons that i love my boyfriend is that he is a self identified feminist. i'm sorry that some of you have had bad experiences with males who identify as feminists, but there's not only my boyfriend in my life, but i have many other male friends who make exquisite self identified feminists. i have great discussions with them and they really get me to think about my beliefs more deeply, and a lot of the time they've thought through gender issues more deeply than i have.

i know in any movement it's scary to trust the person who wears the face of the oppressor, but i think men have to be let in in order for us to advance. i totally agree that it's sexist to assume men will be domineering if allowed in the door. the feminist men i know are much more afraid of those tendencies in themselves than anyone else is. i think there are so many issues, from large to small, from men taking over more house work, to rape culture, that we need men to be feminist on. we can't afford to *not* let them in.

and i'll go further and say that we can't say "you're allowed in but you must stay in low ranking positions." does that sound like anything out of our history, say women in the work force, through, oh, now? i think we need to start trusting men, and when we do, we have to actually trust them.

I think if you call yourself a "feminist," you are attempting to claim full membership in the movement. This includes the capacity to assume a leadership role.

Does feminism have leadership roles? There are certainly prominent feminist thinkers, but I'm not sure if there are any true "leaders."

However, I have repeatedly pointed out my own failings in my attempts to live and think like a feminist. I deeply believe in my own weakness.

I respect this, but to me this only serves to prove the inverse of your point. If you're smart and critical enough to recognize your failings and look critically and objectively at the social structure you fit into, you're better equiped to work for equality. Most feminists aren't perfect either.

As for me, I go by the dictionary definition of "feminist" - one who believes in the equality of the sexes - although I would take it a step further and add an activist angle to the equation.

Pro-feminist to me suggests that you support feminist goals, but you're not actively taking part in them. But ultimately what this comes down to is a question of semantics, and as long as you're doing the right thing I don't think it should matter whether you call yourself a "feminist" or a "pro-feminist" or not.

I do, however, have a serious objection to "feminist supporter" on the grounds that it reminds me too much of one of these.

I was about ready to just write `I totally agree with everything kgsavoie' said, until I came to this paragraph:

[Men] will never be the leaders in the movement, but I think they could be some valuable followers.

So I'm just going to quote a longer comment I made last week at Hugo's. (This is copy-and-pasted, so there's some reference to things that he said that have not been said directly here.)

Yes, radical feminism is right insofar as we're each going to have a slightly different take on the social status quo, and our gender, sex, and race is going to inform that. But Amanda Marcotte's take looks a lot more like Hugo's than it does Dawn Eden's. My take on things is a lot like my friend Natalia's, and is almost the absolute opposite of Bishop John D'Arcy's. (Targetting Catholics is just because I've been arguing with socially conservative ones for the past week or so. Lefty Catholics rock.) [In other words, radical feminism has a lot of things right, but it also engages in some deeply silly essentializing.]

Yes, feminist men have the peculiar burden of recognizing and checking their privileged position as men -- that is, realizing when we're acting on internalized patriarchy. But feminist women have internalized patriarchy, too, and it's their peculiar burden of recognizing when, say, they're doing all the housework just because the inner patriarch says telling your husband or boyfriend to pick up after himself makes you a bad girlfriend or wife.

To me, feminism -- even before I knew the word -- has been about demolishing the ridiculous notion that the penis-equipped are on this side, and the vagina-equipped are on that side. Requiring some feminists to label themselves with the diminutive `allies' and refrain from doing certain important works [writing books in feminist philosophy or organizing a rally or writing legislation, say] just because they happen to be penis-equipped is, I think, as patently contrary to justice and equality as requiring some people to do the same work for less money just because they happen to be vagina-equipped.

And now, can we please stop arguing about the precise referent of the term, and get on with the actual movement? Last I checked, the lack of affordable, quality childcare and the wage gap seemed to be much more serious problems than advocates' genitalia.

[I hate to toss a grenade in the door and run, especially since I almost never comment here, but I'll probably be too busy today to check back in before the thread grows too long to read. If anyone would like to address me personally, contact me through my own blog or the thread on Hugo's. Sorry for the inconvenience!]

I'm starting to like Andrea's "equalist," because it drive home the main message and is gender neutral. Or a possible change to "feminist advocate" to alleviate Bryan's concern. But the real thing is, the label doesn't matter. The ideology does. A man calling himself a feminist, but who doesn't actively try to eliminate his own ingrained patriarchical notions isn't really a feminist.

I call myself a pro-feminist for a number of reasons, not least of which that I belong to groups (like NOMAS) that use that term. I am not a lone ranger; I'm connected to a network of other men who share my interest in gender work, and the collective decision to use the term "pro-feminist" is one I respect. (Michael Kimmel, a man whose work I use constantly, uses the term.)

Names matter, but we can't let a discussion of nomenclature trump a discussion of the role men play in the broader movement for sexual justice.

I think men are just an easily identifiable subset of people who "real" feminists think are faking it. Lord knows there are plenty of arguments about which women are feminists. And of course a "fake" feminist is someone who doesn't share your personal definition of what a feminist is...

I personally subscribe to the 'equality' principle. So I'm a little dubious about the concept that "men can't/shouldn't _____", mostly because I would consider it ludicrous if someone said "WOMEN can't/shouldn't _____"

"pro-" to me implies a different thing.

I am currently pro-feminist insofar as I SUPPORT feminism but have not acquired enough knowledge to BE a feminist. But hey: if I spend a while and read a lot, and eventually sicceed in changing my thinking and my manner then shucks, i'll be a feminist.

To be honest, I didn't read the 22 comments preceding this one. I want to be called "Detective John Shaft." In exchange, I will promise to pretend to respect women worldwide up until the point that it causes me inconvenience, whether real or perceived. Deal?

One of the strengths of any movement lies in its diversity. Women or men who self identify as "feminist" are making a statement to the larger world about their beliefs. I would not deny anyone that self-identification based on his/her/hir gender. As yellownumber5 said, it's the same "you're not feminist enough" argument, and I don't see who that helps.

Men in Feminism is an issue I think about a lot, considering I'm male, or at least male defined, and believe and study feminism. There seems to me a couple issues with men being labelled as feminist, other than what's been said.

Feminist, by the word itself, implies some femininity to it. Now, femininity is not a bad thing, I prefer it on most accounts, but it does have a leaning on the word. I've spoken with men who hesitate to be called feminists to lose their masculinity - and not the machismo kind, but the kind that is their gender identity. Granted, this could be holding on to male privlidge, or male rights while being a feminist, which isn't all that good, but for some of these men I feel they try to keep themselves in check and that their masculinity is a part of them that they don't want to lose. So they opt for 'equalist' or 'pro-feminist'.

I've also had the struggle of keeping myself in check. I've been lucky enough to TA Women's Studies courses, and generally be a part of a college Women's Studies department - and while it's hard, I find myself stopping myself from talking - willing myself silent. While this is against feminism, I see it as something I should do to provide a women's space. Yet, I'm not sure it's entirely fair to me to deny my voice, but it's not fair to other people who want a same-gender safe space either.

I've turned, then, to Queer theory to help me sort this out. Queer theory, to me, is a personal, political, class, race, and gender movement that both stems from and interacts with feminism. It gets away from issues with langauge like 'femini'sm and gets to more of the issues at hand. I love feminism, and will continue to study and act, but I find I don't want to disturb something that may be someone's only safe space. So, I hesitate to call myself a feminist, and only do it when I know I won't be invading someone's space. Upon meeting people, I'll label myself as Queer and let them see how my actions work instead of a clearer label.

Thanks for letting me get that out there. It's also hard to find a safe space to talk about these issues and discuss them without being labelled as the "whiney male" in a feminist community looking for sympathy. I think it's a valid discussion topic, considering all genders need to work for equality, not just one.

This has always been a tricky topic for me, as well, one that my current significant other and I have spent a ton of time talking about.

but it seems that everyone above is agreeing that what is significant has more to do with the perspective you take to the conversation than the labelling you use during the conversation.

But a caveat that seems to be ignored above--what about queer men? There are too many shades of gray in this argument for me to think that it's a matter of personal preference. That being said, if you are going to be a man and call yourself a feminist, you should at least know that this argument exists, and have thought on it.

I certainly see the difference between saying you are a "feminist" and saying you are a "feminist leader." But I believe that claiming to be the former means you have the potential to claim the latter.

Well, yes, the potential exists, but potential is hardly a meaningful definition. Unless you're going to chart new "every egg is sacred" territory.

I can understand women who feel they need a space of their own. But a word of their own? The idea is ludicrous to me. Given how many women state "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then go on to declare that they do believe females are human beings with human rights, the idea of deliberately excluding anyone who wants to identify as feminist is insane to me.

I was raised in a family where both parents identified as feminist so frankly, it's hard for me to imagine saying that men can't be feminists.

On reflection, I see that this is because my tendency is to view feminism as set of morals and feminists as people who hold that set of morals. Obviously sex does not enter into who may hold a set of morals...

However, there is the feminist political movement, but I've been thinking of that in a different head-space from the moral convictions that drive the movement. I see that many of the posts here that are not in favor of male-feminists are talking about roles in the movement rather then as identifying as having feminist convictions.

My second comment on this post...

While feminism is suppossed to be a safe place for women to talk about their experiences, etc, that's only part of it. The other part is advancing the rights of women, challenging stereotypes, passing laws to protect us, and a million other things that require direct action and activism. To me, feminism is about changing the world, and that world includes men. Therefore, if we want a safe and equal world, we should be trying to enlighten men along with ourselves.

Men can absolutely be feminists. Personally, I don't see feminism as being about women necessarily, but rather about gender. Yes, men don't know what it is like to live with the particular constraints that women face, but neither do women know what it is like to have one's behaviour restricted by tight definitions of masculinity and so on. Men need feminism as much as we do.

I'm a feminist. Calling myself a "pro-feminist" when I really consider myself a feminist wouldn't be honoring anyone's wishes--it would be patronizing them. The folks I work with in NOW call me a feminist, and even gave me a leadership role in the local chapter (as public and community outreach chair). I'm not going to turn around and say "No, dear, I'm just a pro-feminist with no personal interest in this, and I'm here solely out of the goodness of my altruistic heart."

And I have to say that if I belonged to a feminist community where everyone insisted that I not describe myself as a feminist, and stay on the sidelines for fear of somehow dominating the group, I would be unable to take an active role of any kind. "I'll accept you conditionally, but don't stand too close" is not a healthy dynamic, and I daresay it plays into exactly the kind of gender separatism that anti-feminists crave.

Fortunately, national NOW calls men feminists and welcomes feminists of both genders to its inner circles. And I am so grateful for that, because this is the most worthwhile and rewarding activist effort I have ever participated in.

Cheers,

TH

What an silly debate. What is the precise effect of calling a man a "feminist ally" rather than a feminist? Does he not get the votes of feminists? Doesn't get the decoder ring? Isn't allowed in the treehouse meetings?

It is this simple: feminism is a matrix of ethical, intellectual, political, and cultural commitments. Being a man might make it more difficult to genuinely and sincerely adhere to those beliefs and actualize them (maybe, and I don't think that self-flagellation a is either useful or particularly virtuous), but that would only explain why there are fewer male feminists than female ones, not why they can't exist.

Can anyone defend the (meaningless) distinction between "male feminist" and "male feminist ally" on any grounds except arbitrary claims of gender?

"Some say it is inappropriate for men to call themselves feminists, arguing that feminism is a movement developed by and for women, and that men can never really understand what it is like to be a woman."

I am not a Black, so I do not understant what it means to be Black, yet I beleive in liberity and justice for all. I am not a whale, yet I beleive in saving the whales. So why can I not be a feminist? I have two daugthers who's rights are extra important to me.

Which is better for the movement a great female leader or simply a great leader. At one time a man was the head of MADD. In promoting feminism one should be mindful of not becoming a different kind of sexist.

"Some say it is inappropriate for men to call themselves feminists, arguing that feminism is a movement developed by and for women, and that men can never really understand what it is like to be a woman."

I am not a Black, so I do not understant what it means to be Black, yet I beleive in liberity and justice for all. I am not a whale, yet I beleive in saving the whales. So why can I not be a feminist? I have two daugthers who's rights are extra important to me.

Which is better for the movement a great female leader or simply a great leader. At one time a man was the head of MADD. In promoting feminism one should be mindful of not becoming a different kind of sexist.

Another story:

I co-started a small local pro-LGBT group. Most people had no problem with the fact that I was taking on a leadership role, but a few said that I was in danger of monopolizing the group, that I had authority and entitlement issues, and that I should take a back seat and see to it that the entire leadership of the chapter was LGBT, with no het officers. I quietly (and foolishly) listened to this small segment of the group, and allowed the people who felt that I should be relegated to the sidelines to dictate the entire group's agenda, offering my unconditional support with no expectation of power or community acceptance. They promptly lost interest, and the group folded soon afterwards.

Moral of the story? Telling passionate people to sit down and shut up because you don't want to have to deal with their kind is not the way to build an activist community. If the first vice president of the NAACP can be a white guy, if many of the greatest leaders of the Southern civil rights movements of the sixties and seventies could be Jews from New England, then by golly, I can be a NOW branch officer. And a damn good one, if I do say so myself.

Cheers,

TH

Pardon me, but this article enraged me.
Feminists believe that women deserve the same rights, respect, and responsibilities as men (I think I'm paraphrasing Ani Difranco). What is it, exactly, about being male that makes us incapable of recognizing injustice and inequality and fighting against them?
Of course I can't understand what it's like to be a woman!
"I can understand, however, the hesitance from some feminists to include men." Well, at least you're open-minded about their prejudice. Good for you, American.
"As the article points out, there is a fear that men wouldn't be willing to learn more than lead."
If you're afraid of men taking over YOUR movement (you know, the movement you inherited), then why don't you just exclude them?
"And I have many friends who take issue with men calling themselves feminists. They think that women need a word all their own and that only someone who experiences life as a woman can truly understand feminism." You need a word all your own? How about "uterus"? I don't know many male feminists who need that word. We also don't need a HUMAN RIGHTS movement that excludes people based on gender. I'm fighting for your equality and you want to exclude me? fuck you. Try and keep me out, you assholes. You have a problem with me calling myself a feminist? Then form a sorority, you elitist jerks.
It's just childish to think that since men can't understand BEING feminine, we can't understand feminism.

I WANT to know men who are geniuinely feminist or pro-feminist (I know a couple, but ironically neither calls himself a feminist.)

Ha, I know the feeling. My personal take on who is a feminist is very low standards (if you believe in equality for men and women, you're a feminist, in my book) since I think of feminism as more of an ideology than as a movement. Besides, I'm a girl, and I don't really do anything to actively advance feminism; do I not get to call myself a feminist?

I have one male friend who believes in equality but takes issue with the word feminist (for reasons I kinda roll my eyes at, but he rolls his eyes at me; it's that kind of friendship); one who has no qualms with feminism but doesn't identify as feminist because he thinks all guys who do identify as feminist are just trying to get laid; one who identifies as feminist almost unthinkingly (like, "how could I not be?") and certainly is; and my boyfriend, whom I've never heard refer to himself one way or the other but said to me in a conversation early in our relationship "You know, one opinion I don't get, is people who are against abortion" and more recently when we were talking about rape stood up because the topic bothers him too much to discuss sitting down, and whom therefore I would qualify as a feminist.

So, yeah, I think men can be feminists as easily as women can be anti-feminist (hi, Caitlin Flanegan! *waves*). I don't think any sort of big-picture activism is necessary for calling oneself a feminist; just an acceptance of feminist principles (or, the feminist principle, that women and men are equal) in everyday life. Also, when I think of feminist issues now I often think of how I think men and women are pushed too far into gender boxes when ideally there would be more of a gender spectrum with no position being scorned, and to exclude men from discussion of that would be somewhat counterintuitive.

I regard "feminist" as a statement about aims and goals, not about capacities, so while it's reasonable to say that as a man I don't understand oppression from the standpoint of a woman, that's not the issue for me. The issue is attempting to be an active participant in dismantling structures of oppression.

I typically use the term in a first year class on writing/argument/critical thinking here at a midwestern university. My use is generally in response to a young woman's saying, "I'm no feminist but I don't believe that we pay enough attention to [insert feature of gender oppression here]." My response takes the form, "I believe that sexual violence (for example) is part of a larger set of structures and that's part of what I think 'feminist' means. Why don't you use the word?" That usually leads to productive thinking and discussion.

If I wanted to be absolutely precise, I'd replace "I'm a feminist," with "I have feminist political and social commitments and beliefs." After all, I've got anti-racist commitments and pacifist commitments and a whole range of other things (as do all the feminists I know) so one word seems limiting and essentializing in ways that I want to avoid.

In any case, I think we should focus on doing the work and let people who need to use the labels define their terms and then use the labels as they will.

unionstagehandj writes:
Pardon me, but this article enraged me.

Me too, but bear in mind the context is a planet where:

- Men who claim to be feminists routinely act like anything but. I once knew a guy who called himself a feminist but strongly believed in major gender distinctions, to the point where he almost had a "ladder theory" approach to life. Later turned out to be sleeping around on his girlfriend, big time--he even had a long-neglected wife in another state.

- The vast majority of men support, in at least some way, the oppression of women.

- Men tend to dominate social groups.

- Men do tend to come into the activist world with an expectation of privilege. (e.g., "I'm a man who joined last week, so I can tell this woman who has been running this successful NOW chapter for five years EXACTLY how she should change everything she does, from tbe bottom up.")

- In other words, by and large, men really are pigs. It takes a lot to overcome that, and I admire the fact that so many women in the feminist movement have.

Cheers,

TH

For me, this isn't a concern that I can work up much energy about. But there are some debates on which I am not theoretical, only practical, and it comes down to this, in my mind:

"Self," I say to myself, "If Tom Head isn't a feminist, who is?"

Now, I understand that Tom and I know each other only through the internet, and he could be living a complicated double life, being an appalling anti-feminist in real life while adopting the most thoughtful, feminist critiques of the modern world here; he could even be female for all I know.

And yet...why assume that such a thoughtful, reasonable person is actually a lying sociopath? No. I hold to my position. Tom is a feminist. Tom is a man. Therefore, men can be feminists.

Now, as to those men who call themselves "feminists" and yet speak and act in a misogynous, sexist way. I have a whole different set of words for them.

I don't think men make good feminist leaders, and I don't think men should be in a position to lead the movement. Nearly all men have been deeply conditioned by patriarchal ideas from an early age. While many of us are trying to do something about it, the truth is that this runs pretty deep and manifests itself in ways we often don't even realize.

In any other context, this would be deeply oppressive. One common way of oppressing groups is saying that they have a tendency toward a certain negative property, and then attacking them based on that property. For example, people with piercings are bad because piercings are associated with criminality; it's okay for fatness to be considered ugly since it's unhealthy; and being afraid of black people is okay because they're likelier than whites to be criminals.

If a male is an unfit leader because of problems caused by masculine conditioning, then he shouldn't be a leader. If despite that conditioning he has shown the ability to lead, then he should get the opportunity to. The same applies to a woman. And it applies not only to feminist organizations but everywhere, only everywhere else this same reasoning is generally used against women rather than against men.

EG, thank you so much. That seriously means a lot. :o)

Cheers,

TH

EG, I just have problem with saying that I know what oppressed people have gone through. Thus, I will always say I am for equal treatment for all people, regardless of sex, but it will seem sort of trite to people if I, a white middle-class male, say I am a feminist. That is why I have begun to have a problem with calling myself a feminist. Not because I don't believe in basic feminist principles, but because of the disconnect with my experiences and the oppressed's experiences. I will always endeavor to understand that disconnect, of course, but that doesn't mean I will ever be able to truly understand what others face in terms of the patriarchy. Things are stacked in my favor, and all I can do is fight that fact with as much conviction as possible.

I call myself a feminist and I am male. I think it's a mistake for the movement to restrict that word to an identity. Clearly a feminist who is a woman has the voice of authentic experience, just as a member of some mistreated ethnic group does. But racism is the whole world's problem and so is sexism. Feminism should be a badge of honor for anyone willing to embrace its ideals.

i'm sure this has been mentioned, but if men can't label themselves feminists, can trans people?

that's as silly as eliminating queer allies from the gay rights movement. not to say gays can't do it on their own, but there is always strength in numbers.

really, men shouldn't have to be feminists any more than women should be. i love that my boyfriend more-than-tolerates my feminism, but shares it with me.

I disagree that it is necessary to somehow exclude men from the feminist movement.

There is something to be said for keeping a same-gender safe space, especially in the contexts of class, when young women are still learning how to be comfortable with their own confidence.

In same way that I, a white woman, cannot really speak to what it means to be a black or hispanic woman, a man cannot speak to what it is like to be a woman in this society. For this reason, while I am always honored to be part of a discussion of race-related feminism, I need to do so with an understanding of my own limitations; if a hispanic woman says one thing about her experiences, I cannot conflate those with my own experiences, and my input along the lines of "In my experience, black/hispanic/etc. women often..." is most likely not welcome.

In my opinion, men should be welcomed into feminist discussions, but it is my hope that they would be present with a sense of self-awareness about their own experiences. It's a place to listen, identify problems about which they might not have been previously aware, and then collaborate on (ideally) a solution. It is not a place for anyone to say "I don't understand why women X" or "if only women would Y."

I forget which woman said they called her a feminist whenever she objected to being treated like a doormat. As someone who doesn't think people should be treated like doormats, that makes me a feminist even though one of my "X" chromosomes is missing a leg. (Making it a "Y")

I was helping the local NOW branch hand out pamphlets one day when some frat boys decided to hassle us. One of them asked 'You're a MAN - why are you a member of the national Organization for Women?"

My reply: "I'm FOR women - why are you against them?" sent them scurrying off in a homophobic panic - but it does highlight why men can be feminists.

I'm melanin-challenged, too - and am also for equal rights.

wren writes:
In my opinion, men should be welcomed into feminist discussions, but it is my hope that they would be present with a sense of self-awareness about their own experiences. It's a place to listen, identify problems about which they might not have been previously aware, and then collaborate on (ideally) a solution. It is not a place for anyone to say "I don't understand why women X" or "if only women would Y."

Oh, yeah, definitely. That connects to the whole male privilege problem--which no man, not even a feminist, can ever hope to completely escape from.

I used to joke that privilege and institutional oppression are the liberal het white man's answer to original sin. Now when I say that, I'm not joking anymore.

Cheers,

TH

That connects to the whole male privilege problem--which no man, not even a feminist, can ever hope to completely escape from.

It's fairly obvious that everyone's views are shaped by social circumstances, but this applies to people of both genders equally. Women can't really be feminists without overcoming patriarchal conditioning to be docile and well-behaved; men can't really be feminists without overcoming patriarchal conditioning to devalue and denigrate women. Neither gender is incorrigible here; it's easier for women to overcome that conditioning than it is for men, but for neither gender is it 100% certain.

I used to joke that privilege and institutional oppression are the liberal het white man's answer to original sin. Now when I say that, I'm not joking anymore.

I'm pretty sure it's more a radical thing than a liberal thing. Not that liberals don't talk about white/male/hetero/upper-class/tall privilege, but stuff like Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack seems to be too far left to be liberal.

I'm a huge fan of Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack (and the antiracism version of the same document), and frequently characterize the strand of feminism I best identify with as radical, so that may well be true.

I'd love it if one day institutional sexism and institutional racism could be exorcised from me, but I don't see how that could possibly happen. I can get them out of my conscious actions, maybe even out of most of my conscious thought patterns, but they'll always be there in the background.

Cheers,

TH

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that a document about racism? Ampersand's male privilege checklist (which I think is far better) is essentially a feminist version of that document.

The institutionalized racism/sexism thing is in most people entirely recessive. I don't see any nontrivial manifestation of it in you, or for that matter in the vast majority of antiracists/feminists I encounter online (being excessively concerned with race/gender is something entirely different, though). Generally, the only people online who I can detect real racism/sexism in are those who are unabashed about it or close to it, such as Larry Summers apologists.

In particular, I don't see a significant difference in how people living in different countries approach racism, and while you can argue all white Americans have been subtly taught to hate blacks, it's harder to say the same thing about people from Israel or Denmark or India or Vietnam (I don't know about the last three, but in Israel Jews only learn to hate Arabs, and vice versa).

Thanks for the correction. There was actually a sequel of sorts to Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack that dealt with institutional sexism rather than institutional racism, but I had forgotten which came first.

Both are amazing.

Cheers,

TH

The institutionalized racism/sexism thing is in most people entirely recessive. I don't see any nontrivial manifestation of it in you, or for that matter in the vast majority of antiracists/feminists I encounter online (being excessively concerned with race/gender is something entirely different, though).

I think Tom's point was that while he might not display outward signs of this internalized racism or sexism, it's always going to be there. I'm sure it's there in you too, and that's okay. The point is to recognize it when it comes up and not act on it. I'm sure nearly every white American has some form of immediate emotional response when he's walking down the street of a city at night and he passes by a group of young black men. But what does he do what that happens? That's when you show your true colors.

As far as I know (and what my Merriam-Websters Collegiate 10th ed Dictionary tells me), feminism is the theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes, or, as I like to say, "If you believe in the equality of women and men, you're a feminist." Why can't men call themselves feminists? My old boyfriend considers himself a feminist. It's not a dirty word.

I strongly agree with cherie. I've known guys who consider themselves feminists, and I love that they do. Furthermore, if they truly are feminists, we don't need to worry about them taking over the moving and subduing women--duh, that's not feminism!

Saying men can't be feminists is imposing a connotation on the word which is not in the dictionary definition, and just makes gaining support for feminism harder. I have girl friends who don't want to call themselves feminists because they think it's somehow a dirty word, and excluding men would just reenforce the "femi-nazi" perception that many people (especially men) have.

Well, most words ending in "ism" refer to a system of belief, not necessarily involving criteria of comprehension. I call myself "pro-feminist" out of respect for those who care about it, but I'm not sure I agree with the concept.

What concerns me is that the whole discussion plays into the stereotype of feminists as obsessing over words as opposed to deeds. That's not to say that words don't have power, but I wonder where the discussion gets everybody.

I've posted on some anti-feminist forums in the past, and come across the term (made only partially in irony) "masculinist." I wonder if I should suggest to the women there that they can only really be "pro-masculinist."

Well i am a ??????.

i am a male in full support of the feminist movement/ideals.

i have called myself and have been called a feminist. If this is not the right term i am sure we will find one.

But a good question that is raised often is "what is the place for men within feminism?" i know a couple of guys who are willing to support the cause but feel confessed about what is the best way for them to be involved and help out.

Yes we men need to listen to our sisters and other women about our role, because i to have seen men try to help out the feminist movement only to hurt it because of not being a ware of their actions.

i feel that one of the things that i can bring to the movement is the sad fact the there is a group men(and some women) who will listen to what i have to say because i am a man.(at least for 20-30 seconds before they shut out my ideas.) But how to use those few short seconds?

as well as standing up against the jokes and locker room talk we hear.

any thoughts?

ps-Keep up the good work. i always enjoy reading this blog.

Never had an issue with men who wanted to aid in women's causes.
I never found it odd that, at university, there were men majoring and minoring in the Women's Studies program. Our department head even suggested those that had dire issue with the gender of thier classmates find another course of study.
To me, feminist theory is woman centred not woman exclusive.
I see no reason that a man cannot consider himself a feminist.

I'm sure nearly every white American has some form of immediate emotional response when he's walking down the street of a city at night and he passes by a group of young black men.

I'm not so sure... mind you I'm not American, so my lack of knee-jerk emotional reaction to seeing a group of young black men on the street at night doesn't count that much.

But it's a claim that seems impossible to either substantiate or refute. So I'd rather concentrate not on it, but on detectable manifestations of racism/sexism.

Personally I'm also interested in comparing the behavior of feminist men, antiracist whites, and secularist Christians. Evidently American secularists have little problem with Americans United's being led by a minister; the NAACP had white leadership for decades, if I'm not mistaken. So it'd be interesting to look at why feminist movements seem to have a dearth of male leaders.

Well... it appears that I may be doubted for self-identifying as a feminist... but there it is. I am not concerned about what I am called, and I am only a little concerned about what people think about me (though I suspect I may be LYING in that latter case...). What matters is what I do.

I think that whether a man can be a "feminist" or "pro-feminist" is really missing the most basic issue. Women face issues of sexism regularly in their lives (as People of Color face racism).

As men we can be "nice guys" while not substantively confronting and helping end sexism. Women have regular reminders that they are "only a woman".

For men to really be supportive of feminism we need to both support women and to affirmatively work with men to help end misogyny.

Such work can clearly be at many levels from confronting sexist jokes and statements to working with batterers and "normal men" (who aren't visibly misogynst)to help change our whole culture.

I try to explore some of these issues through blogging at both: www.geoisphere.blogspot.com and www.feministallies.blogspot.com. Others do far more than I do. There certainly could be far more men doing far more good work.

When we as men do even 25% of the work that women do, I'll start being concerned about what title we have.

Thanks!

When we as men do even 25% of the work that women do, I'll start being concerned about what title we have.

The thing is, it's not "we" but "I." Does Tom Head do less to help women than Kim Gandy? Probably. Does he do more than most women, including many members of NOW and feminist bloggers? Definitely. It's obvious that fewer men than women are going to fit the label feminism; however, that does not mean that men should be categorically excluded from or marginalized in feminism activist movements.

Thanks for the kind words!

Part of the reason I'm loathe to accept labels like "pro-feminist" is because it implies that I have less of a feminist responsibility than women--that progressive women should be expected to be literate in these issues but progressive men don't have to. We see some of that in the way male progressives like Kos tend to take on a kind of South Park-y vibe when it comes to women's rights, working to distance themselves from it. When men are encouraged to call themselves non-feminists, I think that contributes to the problem.

Cheers,

TH

Jessica, the way I learned it in school was that "pro-feminist" as a term was largely confined to radical feminist ideology; most radfems deny that men can participate in a movement to free women from oppression by men; ergo they can me at most supporters, "pro-" and not participants, "feminists."

With respect to some of the prominent guys who take a different position (Punkass Marc Faletti, Chris Clarke and Hugo Schwyzer, I think all use PF), I adopt the term Feminist for myself. I think the term is defined by participation in a political movement, the aim of which is to change the world by scrapping the patriarchal system. On my account, it is possible and more to the point necessary for men to want that: for het, white, privileged men to want something better, not for just for our daughters and mothers and sisters and partners, but for ourselves, to recognize that the system that oppresses and kills women also costs us some of our humanity (and makes us complicit, every day we have unearned privilege, with those with their feet on women's throats).

While I have tremendous respect for the energy and effectiveness of radfems in the second wave and today, there are major points of disagreement between me and them, including whether men can be participants in the feminist movement. I adopt the terminology consistent with my position.

All that is the long version of this: when someone use the term "profeminist", I infer a radfem orientation.

To be honest, I find this whole conversation to be rather unconstructive. If in fact it is our purpose to knock down the walls of gender inequality, then it must start with the idea that systems that support binary ideas about gender, race, and religions have to be done away with. I look at feminism as a certain section of an army in a war. As feminist it is our role in the war to fight against inequalities and improprieties the idea of a “sexed� gender has created. To support a system that uses oppressive ideas about how gender is simply an issue of sex, then we have given power to those who would use this binary machinery to hurt us and our struggle. So in light of this, to argue over whether someone who identifies as a man is, or can be, a feminist, is counterproductive to the fight against inequality. If fact strewn throughout these comments are things that I would consider to be “sexist�, and one cannot fight “sexism� with sexism.

To be honest, I find this whole conversation to be rather unconstructive. If in fact it is our purpose to knock down the walls of gender inequality, then it must start with the idea that systems that support binary ideas about gender, race, and religions have to be done away with. I look at feminism as a certain section of an army in a war. As feminist it is our role in the war to fight against inequalities and improprieties the idea of a “sexed� gender has created. To support a system that uses oppressive ideas about how gender is simply an issue of sex, then we have given power to those who would use this binary machinery to hurt us and our struggle. So in light of this, to argue over whether someone who identifies as a man is, or can be, a feminist, is counterproductive to the fight against inequality. If fact strewn throughout these comments are things that I would consider to be “sexist�, and one cannot fight “sexism� with sexism.