Can a man ever truly be a feminist?

[ed miliband]

If we say that the "emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves", shouldn't the same rule also apply to the struggle against patriarchy?

[Ele'ill]

Why? What would the benefit of that be?

[Ostrinski]

Feminism
Feminism is a collection of movements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_movement) aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_and_equality) political, economic, and social rights for women.
Ergo, everyone on this board who isn't restricted is a feminist. Whether or not or how much men can aide or partake in this liberation is a debatable issue, however. But yes you can be a man and strictly ideologically feminist.

[Susurrus]

By that logic, neither Engels nor Marx were socialist.

[eyedrop]

Well if a feminist organisation has a mostly male de-facto leadership it would raise some doubts.

Same as a communist organisation with a mostly academics as leadership would raise some doubts.

A "movement" to decrease sexism won't be lead by men.

[Ocean Seal]

Except workers liberation is different from other struggles because it is the fundamental level of oppression. The other forms of systematic oppression are symptoms of capitalism, and destroying them is in the interest of all workers.

Which is why men can realize their privilege and fight against it in the same way that whites can fight racism and first worlders imperialism.

[Ostrinski]

I think it's also fair to point out that if the majority of the working class were class conscious, it would negate the necessity for a feminist/anti-racist movement that is independent of the class struggle. That is if what we are saying is true (that social inequality is a product of class society).

[hatzel]

I feel that Jamie Heckert's Maintaining the Borders (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Jamie_Heckert__Maintaining_the_Borders__identity__ _politics.html) makes a number of pertinent points which could be of interest to this discussion. Including:


Identity often imagines easily defined interests. Feminism is often presented as for women only; men are perceived to entirely benefit from the gender system. Many men do clearly benefit from the gender system in terms of institutionalised domination. If we perceive interests as inherently stemming from current systems, we fail to recognise how people would benefit from alternative systems. If we want to encourage and inspire people to create a very different form of society, we should share with each other what we see as beneficial. We must recognise that different value systems (e.g. domination versus compassion) result in very different interests.

Identity discourages participation. If people are worried that they might be excluded through labelling (e.g. racist or homophobic), they won’t feel welcomed and won’t get involved. Likewise, people do not get involved if they believe that it is not in their interests. If we pepetuate the idea that feminism is for women, men will never see how it could also be in their interests to support feminism. Or they might support feminism, but feel guilty for their male privilege. Either way, men are not encouraged to be active in feminist movements. Radical social change requires mass social movement. Identity politics, by definition, can never achieve this. Political identities, like “environmentalist”, can likewise become a basis for minority politics.

[manic expression]

There's a difference between the general dictionary definition of "feminist" and what feminism actually is today. In the abstract, sure, everyone who's even vaguely progressive will be a "feminist" because they'll believe in gender equality. However, that's not what many quarters of feminism are about today. Personally, after I spent a few years attempting to stomach those negative (not to mention condescending) comments about masculinity and male perspectives, I simply stopped trying to work with feminism or endorse its views...there's no point participating in an ideology that doesn't even try to understand you.


If we pepetuate the idea that feminism is for women, men will never see how it could also be in their interests to support feminism. Or they might support feminism, but feel guilty for their male privilege. Either way, men are not encouraged to be active in feminist movements.Yes, finally someone gets it.

[InsertCleverUsername]

Patriarchy affects men too.

[Aleenik]

I support women's rights of course, but the reason I don't identify as a feminist is because really there is no need as I'm an anarcho-communist. Communism is about equality. That includes equality for women.

[Decolonize The Left]

If we say that the "emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves", shouldn't the same rule also apply to the struggle against patriarchy?

In the first place, they aren't analogous struggles (no two struggles are), so the question isn't appropriate.

In the second place, re-read hatzel's post and Brospierre's first post. They covered it well.

- August

[black magick hustla]

theres like a million feminisms, a lot of the new stuff coming out of the asshole of academia is about womens subjectivity and what it is to be a woman. i guess in that sense you cant be a male feminist. but there are other feminisms too. i dont get why would a man feel compelled to identify as one though, because it seems to me feminism is more than just "female equality", at least today. i think a lot of it is like sensitive white punk boys..

[Dumb]

To say that men can't be feminists strikes me as an enormous concession to essentialism and/or biological determinism.

Not that I actually know what I'm talking about; I'm merely parroting a friend of mine with a PhD, Prof. Claire Chambers, who does know what she's talking about.

[¿Que?]

Of course it all comes down to what you mean by feminist and what you mean by man as well. Insofar as you even begin your analysis by presupposing a binary gender system, then feminism is the negation of the gendered system, of male interest. Insofar as this is possible, given to a social psychological analysis of human behavior, i.e. male behavior within the strictures of male dominant patriarchy, then the answer is yes. However, the presupposition of a binary gender system is itself part of the heteronormative culture which presupposes and reinforces male domination. In this sense, then, the question is nonsensical. (Thus, we have no idea if we, in the concrete, are talking about a self identified man, or biological male, the cultural construct of chivalry, or some other permutation of linguistics).

[Frank Zapatista]

Patriarchy affects men too.

This, basically. Like I've said before, I consider the patriarchy and gender roles to be the root of homophobia aswell. People look at gays as not fitting into the gender norm, in this way the womens struggle and the gay struggle are related. I certainly consider myself a feminist. The day gender roles are eliminated, women and gays will be liberated.

[NewLeft]

theres like a million feminisms, a lot of the new stuff coming out of the asshole of academia is about womens subjectivity and what it is to be a woman. i guess in that sense you cant be a male feminist. but there are other feminisms too. i dont get why would a man feel compelled to identify as one though, because it seems to me feminism is more than just "female equality", at least today. i think a lot of it is like sensitive white punk boys..

Or the brand of 'feminism' that thinks of women as incompetent, fragile..

[Ostrinski]

i think a lot of it is like sensitive white punk boys..And there is nothing wrong with this fact.

In all seriousness though, if "sensitive white punk boys" are the only males who believe in gender equality, we've got a problem.

[Decolonize The Left]

http://www.deviantart.com/download/167945012/For_every_girl__There_is_a_boy_by_Elenari.png

- August

[Zav]

If we say that the "emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves", shouldn't the same rule also apply to the struggle against patriarchy?
All that means is that for the workers to be free, they must rise and claim their freedom.
For women to be free, they must do the same. In no way does that exclude men from helping.

[manic expression]

All that means is that for the workers to be free, they must rise and claim their freedom.
For women to be free, they must do the same. In no way does that exclude men from helping.
The problem is that as soon as you present that dichotomy, not only will men not want to "help" with that vision of liberation...but there's little reason for them to want to help.

[MegaBrah]

We all here want workers liberation, yet we would not support a group calling themselves marxist made up of CEO's and bankers.

You can be a feminist however it will be women who bring equality for women as it will be the workers, not politicians or anyone from without claiming to represent us as a class.

[blake 3:17]

I have since I was politically conscious called myself `pro-feminist`

[Lynx]

It's easy to slap labels on yourself, participation in the feminist movement would be a better litmus test.