I’m a cis male and I believe in the importance of feminism, but I hesitate to call myself a feminist because it seems like there is a presumption of understanding women’s experiences as if I was part of the Me Too movement. In some binary sense given how hateful and shitty men can be I’m absolutely a feminist, but I wouldn’t declare myself to be one. What is your standpoint?
No, never.
Because I don’t even understand what feminism is. There’s so many conflicting opinions under that umbrella that the label doesn’t even make much sense to me.“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”
That bit is just common sense, though.
So, why is it so uncommon?
Feminism is, indeed, just common sense
I had professors ask us to raise our hands if we’re a feminist, and usually every young man did. This was in the Obama administration, before the right became so fascist, but still. We don’t expect you to have an equally deep understanding or to be familiar with academic feminist works. We just expect you to believe women are equally valuable individuals, who have the right to pursue their own happiness, live their lives how they want to live them, and be supported by their community in their health, wellbeing, and pursuits.
Fuck the -ists and -isms. Consider policies and actions on their merit, not the label.
I hesitate to call myself a feminist because it seems like there is a presumption of understanding women’s experiences
Being a woman is the only thing that gives you access to women’s experiences, but being a woman doesn’t automatically make you a feminist.
Understanding women’s experiences (i.e., being a woman) and being a feminist are orthogonal things.
My opinion as another cis dude: there are three things at play. (1) What is the definition of “feminism?” If you believe that women and men and everybody in between and beyond are equally worthy members of society and should not be discriminated against in any way, then you fit my definition and can call yourself a feminist. (2) I recognize that this is a hot button issue for some people unfortunately. I also see that other people may operate under a different definition. I give shit to anybody with opinions on the matter that go against (1). I don’t necessarily use the word “feminist” in that context because some words - good words! - have a way of closing people off like an oyster. “Woke” and “feminism” are two examples. Worthy concepts behind both in my view but the mere mention makes some people stop listening. Especially those who would benefit from widening their horizons. Humans are capable of rational thought but we don’t always do or behave that way. I’m dogmatic in my opinion but I’m not dogmatic in the language that I use so I try and adjust it to fit the situation. (3) Even among supposed allies you’ll find oddballs. You don’t want to be a self-professed feminist who mansplains feminism, just as an example.
In this mixed minefield, I think I want to be judged more by my actions than the terms I use.
I was raised with Gloria Steinem’s definition of feminism shaping my understanding, and have called myself a feminist since I was a child:
“A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men.”
A more modern and inclusive version of that same idea, adopted by UN Women:
“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”
Feminism is a very complex grouping of movements and ideologies, but I think “membership” within them is very simple: if you believe in equality regardless of gender, you’re a feminist.
This raises the question whether feminist is the right word for those definitions. Humanist, maybe?
I’m not trying to “all lives matter” the situation – the history of the treatment of women warrants specific advocacy. But I think of a feminist as someone who (regardless of gender) is actively an advocate for change, not just someone who believes in equality.
That’s the connotation I have for the word anyway. Clearly UN Women are a more authoritative source, and they specifically use the word “belief,” so my connotation seems to be wrong.
What’s different to me is it’s feminism not femalism, in that feminine doesn’t tend to mean women specifically. I would actually argue it’s mostly used as a modifier of explicit non-women, and is, in a roundabout way, directly about men and anything unassociated with women as well.
As if to say “this isn’t about women, it’s about the opposition to non-manliness that exists in the world”.
Like a white person is not black, but a man can be feminine. That’s not to say black issues aren’t pertinent to white people in a similar way (if one of us is not free, none are free, nonblack people demeaned for cultural blackness, etc), but it’s an identity that can be wholely intrinsic to a man.
Oh, and another point you bring up I think is interesting is the distinction between holding the belief and directly or strongly acting on it, and should we consider a believer or passive actor as non-ideological? I think that comes down to a No True Scotsman sort of mindset.
Kind of rambling and pedantic, but I like to think about the little details.
Edit: Actually, the more I think about it, the more it kind of is the same as BLM, and I think even just holding the belief is important.
How does it feel that the person who defined feminism for you was a CIA agent?
Not great!
Are you implying that feminism is a CIA initiative?
Steinem worked with the CIA to promote reactionary propaganda and helped direct the women’s liberation movement into a corporate-friendly, anti-socialist direction.
Source: Jacobin
They didn’t imply feminism is a CIA initiative, but the CIA definitely worked with her to influence the feminist movement.
Sure, because they cared about controlling the direction of the political movement, same way they influenced the Civil Rights movement. But once again, unless they are implying that the definition of feminism as offered by Steinem, quoted above, is part of a CIA influence op, or tainted by their influence, then what’s the point of bringing that up?
To have a conversation? To get further insight into how a person thinks? To gain understanding? To talk about the ideological framework through which the person views the world, and hopefully gain some perspective out of that talk?
If they truly intended it to be a neutral question, then they used a particularly bad choice of phrasing.
Most people understand the CIA is a tool of imperialist violence/authority, but framing that as “how does it feel to x” is clearly a condemnation of the association being pointed out, which in this case would only matter if that association itself in some way taints the topic it was brought up in response to… I.e. the definition of feminism by Steinem.
Fair point.
Calling myself a feminist would be stolen valour.
Yes. Even in the most cynical light, standing with women is within my own self interest because my rights will surely erode alongside theirs. But also i like women and am disgusted with how they are treated socially and economically, and want that to change for the better. So a feminist i am.
I wouldnt, because it is not mine to claim the descriptor, if anything, I get highly suspicious if a man feels the need to mention they’re a feminist. If a woman describes my behaviour as feminist I’ll gladly wear it, and I do believe it would be a validation of what I believe in / my values.
“Feminism is the belief that everyone, regardless of gender, should have equal rights and opportunities.”
With this definition in mind, would you call yourself one?
It’s really hard to call yourself a feminist when you realize that all major achievements of western feminism aren’t the direct result of activism but rather capitalism. To paraphrase DiCaprio’s Character from Django, activism had their curiosity, the financial incentive had their attention.
Industries and governments realised that they were essentially not capitalizing on 50% of the population.
Women in the work force wasn’t a noble grant of freedom, it was an increase in production and profit. If it were truly as noble as it is made out to be, they would’ve given them equal pay from the start.
Same thing goes for women being able to have their own bank account. Women having their own money means they will spend it, driving the economy. Even the right to vote just provides another angle of attack to influence and radicalize the population. Those are the 3 corner stones, work for capital and pay income tax, spend your money and pay sales tax and vote for whoever the TV tells you to vote. Everything else is just comfort to sweeten the deal. That’s also why 3rd wave feminism has grinded to a halt. The is no capitalist financial incentive to give women even one more inch of freedom than they already have.Women haven’t won anything they’ve just gotten of the side lines, right into the corporate meatgrinder.
And now we’re here, where a two head family can’t afford to have a child because both members working 9-5 can barely support themselves financially, yet alone have the money or time to have a child. And neither corporations nor the government are eager to support them as if giving back even a single cent of profits is a cardinal sin.
Damn dude. Great read.
To expand on what @[email protected] said, this analysis ranges from reductive to completely ahistorical.
Women have been part of the productive workforce long before the notion of equality was even on the table. The idea that women were exclusively bearing and rearing children before the industrial revolution is nonsense, women were crucial workers in agriculture and manufacture and it was impossible for a family to be fed only by the patriarch.
The relationship between capitalism and feminism is actually partly the other way around from what you are presenting. Industrialization required centralization and urbanization, which meant it was easier than ever for women to organize with their colleagues and comrades and demand equal rights. It also eased access to weapons, which allowed for direct violent action to force the ruling class to pay attention. Capitalism accelerated or even sometimes spawned feminist movements, which were always in direct contradiction with the actual capitalists who were entirely male at the time.
The idea that women haven’t won anything is just bullshit. You are right that they didn’t “win” the “right to work”, because they had that “right” forever. But what they actually did win is a smaller gender gap in pay and economic opportunities, access to better education, right to political representation, legal prohibitions on some kinds of gender violence. If you think all of this was somehow “granted” by (male) capitalists because it is profitable, that’s just untrue, most of it was directly or indirectly hurtful to the ruling class when those measures were first introduced.
Guess everything was better when every woman was barefoot and pregnant, right?
But seriously, what the hell is this analysis? Women have always been a part of the labor and productive forces. Do you think women existed solely in a state of domesticity before fighting for the right to vote in the US? This entire argument rests on the notion that capital is the driver of social change. I guess you might not know that people can react to their material conditions just as much as capitalists can react to people. Like there’s some kind of…oh I don’t know, a dialectical relationship between these forces.
Fuckin a
I’m sorry, but that is a huge crock of horseshit with absolutely nothing to back it up but vibes. That’s like saying the abolitionist movement achieved nothing because it is superceded by a broader class struggle against capitalism.
Women fought for and won the the right to self determination, the right to vote, the right to divorce, the right to bodily autonomy, the right to be legally treated as persons instead of as the property of their husbands, etc, and none of that is diminished by its byproduct of a larger workforce being better for capitalists. “Women haven’t won anything” fuck outta here
Maybe I simply have a hard time imagining a world where politicians listened to the demands and protests of the people and governed themselves accordingly.
Maybe 100 years ago politicians where less corrupt and more empathetic towards the problems of the working class people.
Maybe back then it was more difficult to pay off a few key people to let a bill pass in your favor.
Or maybe, an economic plan was created based on the post war industrial development in which out of pure desperation for manpower, women have proven themselves to be just as effective in working at factories as men. And in the name of improving effectiveness, this got the ball rolling to ultimately elevate women’s rights on par with men’s.
Feminism isn’t some new last century concept. Women have been fighting for right for millennia but where always at bane of powers outside their control (AKA monarchs, the church, etc.). So there must be a good reason why it only worked out after the bloodiest most brutal self induced chapter of human history. What was the alternative, saying: “Thanks for the help, now go back home and tend to your crippled husbands.”? That’s actually exactly what governments did, and the result was a severely crippled economy that catapulted the world right into another World War.
No matter which country you’re from, your great great mother has most likely contributed to getting the country through some of the worst times in it’s history. A time when people weren’t buried, they were dying in the streets and eaten by rats. And the reward was… that exception has turned into expectation. And as over the past 100 years almost all the money has wandered from the pockets of many into the pockets of few, women’s right to work has turned into a necessity to work.
I don’t believe for a second that the leaders of the 1920s had given women any more rights than in the centuries before out of the goodness of their hearts unless it was absolutely economically necessary.
Have you not noticed how workers have become customers to their own workplace? Corporation not only want to pay you less, they want you to give your paycheck back to them. And all the safeguards put up over the last decades for women in society and the workplace are being slowly dismantled by a very evident right shift of global politics. All to get you to the perfect algorithmically determined point of anger, desperation and contempt to make you pay exactly one cent less than the highest possible asking price for any given service (or as it was once called “product”). Modern day 1st world feminism is engineered. As evident by every corporation dropping the rainbow flags the second pride month ends, is that if corporations don’t have to care - they won’t. Feminism isn’t excluded from that.
How long ago do you think women’s suffrage was? This wasn’t something that just happened in the last couple of decades. Literally over 100 years ago the 19th amendment passed giving women the right to vote. Nobody is saying that politicians it the government did it out of the kindness of their hearts, it’s because women and allies fought like Hell for it.
A crippled economy is not the reason for a second world war, that’s just ridiculous correlation, and barely even that.
You’re conflating multiple things and assuming that’s causation. Yes, women entered the workforce and started earning their own money. Yes, the economy has changed to the point where people of all genders are now stuck working to survive. That didn’t happen because women were working, it happened and also women are working.
Just because corporations are shit doesn’t mean that feminism isn’t a thing. Look up the definition of feminism. It’s an ideology as well as a movement. There’s still a long ways to go to truly get all genders to be perceived and treated as equals, but the last 150+ years have been huge for women’s equality. It’s been too slow by any reasonable person’s standards, but big changes in society and they way people view each other doesn’t happen over night.
yeah, you’re right. it’s not all just about economics. it’s also about religion.
-
“the right to self determination” stems from e.g. calvinism which advocates the “priesthood of all believers”, i.e. that every person is able to conceive what is right and good themselves, without needing the instruction of another. this effectively translates to the right to self-determination in a modern democracy, since a person who is physiologically able to make their own decisions should also be practically able to make their own decisions.
-
the whole rest of the rights that you listed are more or less direct consequences of the right to self determination.
-
Yes. I was raised by feminist parents and have always supported equal rights and equal pay, and stood against misogyny and sexism. You’re right go not want to be presumptive, but the answer to that isn’t to shy away from feminism, it’s to listen.
Woman here and we could use more male feminists
From your perspective, is there anything in particular you think would be helpful to see from male feminists?
Solidarity
In the sense of “do women deserve equal treatment in society?” 100%!
I idolized my grandmothers as a kid, and they did a better job raising me than my actual parents. Both sides of the family always seemed much more matriarchal to me.
The one time I was ever in charge of anything was at a fairly sexist job and I repeatedly fought to get the ladies’ pay more in line with the guys, I reported a few people to HR for making my staff uncomfortable, and I ensured the one employee got a private lactation area after she had a baby.
Now I volunteer with animal rehab, and that is a field that is about 90% women, and they are all so badass, compassionate, they do every job, and come from every walk of life.
To see all I’ve seen and to not think anyone deserves the same treatment as me because of their gender would be insane. I don’t like labeling myself, because I’m always not going to fit someone’s definition of that thing, they can call me whatever they want, but I like to see whoever is around me getting treated right.
Yeah. I wouldn’t bring it up as a non sequitur but it’s pretty important.
Yes, of course. I don’t feel the need to lead with it unprompted because that’s not where I focus my attention in terms of advocacy, but:
- Anyone who isn’t a male chauvinist is a feminist by process of elimination
- As a bicycling advocate, feminism comes with the territory because biking was a big part of the women’s lib movement back in the Victorian era. (Quick explainer, deeper dive)
