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?
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.
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.
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.
Yes, absolutely.
You don’t have to understand a woman’s experience so much as you have to not be a dick when she tells you her experience.
Look at all the men that got butthurt over “bear vs rando man” and I’m gonna be honest, I’d choose the bear over many of them too. They refused to listen to what was actually being said by that statement.
Hit the nail on the head. Being cis white het doesn’t make you automatically the enemy. Your actions do.
There are dozens of us!
–
Seriously though when I hear reactionaries complain about the different movements condemning the white patriarchy, all I can think is “oh you thought they were mad at you? Well I guess they were right to be”. It’s really not that hard to recognize the injustice and violence inflicted in the past and to try to stop it from continuing. And most importantly it’s not hard to know when to sit down, shut the fuck up, and listen
That’s a lot of buzzwords to agree with me.
Yes, I’m a cis man and I am a Marxist feminist. Feminism is not exclusionary to cis men, and Marxist feminism is critical as patriarchy is a secondary contradiction that rests upon the primary contradiction of class society. Attacking sexism attacks capitalism, and attacking capitalism attacks sexism. They are connected.
Thanks for saying this. There was a rather popular unpopular opinion a while ago about how the only struggle should be the class struggle, and feminism was getting in the way. People need to see that they’re both part of the same fight.
That is a vulgar materialist conception, from those who do not grasp dialectical materialism, as well as those who reject it deliberately. Class reductionism doesn’t recognize secondary contradictions that rest upon the base of primary contradictions, seeing each as separate and butchering how contradiction actually works as an engine of change in dialectics.
Highly recommend reading Domenico Losurdo - Class struggle for more on this.
It gets into how there’s not just a single class struggle, i.e. working class versus bourgeoisie, but many different and related class struggles. Both Marx and Engels held this multivariate view of class struggle too, and it was only later that chauvinists, anti-feminists, and imperialists restricted its meaning to the workplace only.
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.
Yes 100% bc the literal definition of feminism is the equal treatment for all genders. I don’t go around just telling people that. They can probably just tell I am bc I’m not shitty to a specific gender…
Of course I would and I do. I find the arguments that there are many branches of feminism to be a reason to not consider yourself a feminist to be kind of ridiculous. There are multiple branches of everything. Not all anarchists agree, not all socialists agree, not all communists agree. No group is a monolith with perfectly aligned values and thoughts.
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 someone access to women’s experiences, but being a woman doesn’t automatically make someone a feminist. Neither thing presumes the other.
The phrase I use as a male is “I emphasize with feminists” it puts them in the drivers seat but I’m there to support them.
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.
Would you call yourself a feminist?
Yes.
Anyway the “shaming men for being feminists”/“only women can be feminists” thing is absolutely a thing the fascists have peddled to cripple feminism.
Absolutely would call myself a feminist and here’s the reason. Calling yourself a feminist is a declaration that you aren’t in performance for brownie points for men’s sake and you aren’t going to fade to the background the first second the going gets tough. Feminists don’t “hate men” but the fact that their issues get sidelined the minute anybody’s feelings about their personal masculinity gets hurt means most of the time any discussion about women’s issues become about mincing around insecure men.
Feminism is egalitarianism, it is strictly NOT female superiority. The issue with calling feminism egalitarianism is it tends to be a label summerizing the passive part of the movement that asks nothing of people.
Systems that aren’t artificially adjusted just end up replicating the same shit they always had over and over and the adjustments don’t feel fair or equal to the people who have always benefitted before the change. Justice sometimes meaning giving up something to the party in need. Damn near everyone is up for equality in theory, but the moment they are asked to give up anything suddenly it’s women’s superiority. They don’t look at being passed over for the promotion in favor of an equally deserving and more generally underrepresented woman as being just or needed when it’s them who doesn’t get chosen. They still in their heart of hearts believe that whenever a woman comes out on top it’s not because she deserves to be there.
And it’s hard. It’s hard to put justice first. It’s hard to hire someone who isn’t your close personal friend who looks just like you and instead choose someone who acts or looks different who you won’t be as comfortable around. It’s hard to change your culture to be mindful of needs you don’t personally have to make someone else comfortable. The whole POINT is that it’s hard. Everything that is hard for you is a comfort, a point without personal friction you have, a PRIVILEGE that you are purposefully choosing to not cash in on anymore because that privilege was never on the table for someone else.
If you aren’t willing to face the minor discomfort of being devisive and calling yourself a feminist and gaining the ire of other men what other comforts are you not going to give up?
Feminism is egalitarianism, it is strictly NOT female superiority
Exactly, the latter is matriarchy and that’s the one I really want to try out! I don’t think it would be perfect but I am just curious how it would turn out? For science!
Honestly me too. And YES i am biased as hell here. I don’t like people in general and my objective opinion is that power will attract the wrong people regardless of gender.
BUUUT my subjective experience will not let me believe that women in charge would not change things for the better overall. From a purely curious place i would really like to see how it would work out, a failure would be just as interresting to me as a success.
I want to add that i also believe the main problem of patriachy is not the oppression of women but the oppression of “female” coded traits. What i would really like to see is a society that favors empathy and collaboration, i don’t need women in charge for that and i certainly don’t base my support for anyone on their genitals, that would be crazy.
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
Hard yes. If you believe in equality and justice what the fuck else would you be?
Though, I suppose there are those that don’t… They can fuck off
In my humble enby opinion you can call yourself a feminist if you believe in equality between genders. There are many flavours of feminism and they often contradict each other. You will never be a perfect feminist in every feminists’ eyes. And you shouldn’t try to be.
But be humble and curious when other feminist and particularly women try to explain their point of view.
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)
I understand what you are saying, but you don’t need a lived female experience to be a feminist.
I will declare you one. You are a feminist. Be proud.
