sigelphoenix

I was browsing through feminist yesterday and ran across this post about a (female) feminist whose boyfriend won't use the term for himself, even though he considers himself an equalist/egalitarian. That is, he supports equality of the sexes, but won't call his beliefs feminist.

I've seen this sentiment expressed a lot by both men and women, and I'm pretty tired of it. And considering that I didn't even understand, myself, what 'feminist' means until about a year ago -- and didn't really consider myself a feminist until after that -- I can just imagine how tired people who have been feminists for years or decades must be.

Frankly, I think most of the people who say this *would* consider themselves feminists if they had a clearer understanding of what the term means. I think that's what happened with me. I never used the equalist-not-feminist (ENF) line, but that was my general sentiment about feminism -- until I learned more.



A preliminary note: I use 'feminist' in a general sense, to indicate someone who supports feminism in any way, rather than calling up strict qualifications of participating in this or that form of political activism. (Hell, *I'm* not an activist.) There are people who do hold up these qualifications -- and I'm not saying that activism isn't necessary. But I find it self-defeating to cut off people who are supportive, but not active 'enough,' when you could instead be reaching out, teaching, and encouraging activism.

Oh, where to start ... There are a billion and a half sources of feminist writing that offer up introductions to and definitions of feminism. I guess I'll focus on what I think is 'missing' for the people who consider themselves ENFs -- what might well change their minds.

The first problem is simply bad press. Feminazi? Man-hating lesbian? Ugly and undesirable? Angry bitch? Being a feminist often means associating yourself with these stereotypes, possibly feeling like you have to defend yourself ("Oh, but I'm not that kind of feminist ..."). But, um, feminism doesn't mean these things. (I'll talk about *why* it's become associated with these things a bit further down.)

So, by what definition do feminist women hate men? Sure, some (many? most?) feminists are lesbian (or bisexual or asexual or in some other way do not match with standard heterosexuality). But then you have to make the leap that non-heterosexual women, because they do not sexually desire men, therefore *hate* men. Hm.

Certainly there are some sub-movements of feminism that encourage lesbianism with the express intent of focusing on women/ignoring men. The belief, I think, is that focusing women's attention on women, rather than on the traditional heterosexual metanarrative (win a man for the sake of love, marriage, and family), is a preliminary step to working *for* women and their rights. One such feminist I read, in fact, said that lesbians were "unconscious feminists." This sub-movement is also often separatist in tone, emphasizing the need for women-only groups and political action. Separatist lesbian feminism, if I recall correctly, also often overlaps with cultural feminism, which embraces separatism out of a belief in the superiority of women's behavior/skills/traits (culture). These strains of feminism were prevalent in the 1960s/70s (Second Wave feminism), and, to my knowledge, have less following among the current younger generation of the 1990s and later (Third Wave). It's similar to the way in which racial separatist movements developed during the Civil Rights movement (in fact, that's where Second Wave got its push), but are less common nowadays.

So, yes. There are some sub-movements of feminism that are mostly lesbian; and, without hating men, may not particularly like or pay attention to them. The thing is, though -- if you study feminism even a little bit (I only took one class, I know just a little myself!), you'll see that there are many, many sub-movements, as well as many, many variations of each sub-movement, to the point that each individual feminist is different. There are extremists at all ends of the spectrum; there are idiots and crazies, just like any movement. There are also some brilliant minds. None of that has to do with the movement itself.

You know how being a liberal doesn't necessarily make you pro-choice or socialist or atheist or a vegan? Surprise! Feminism doesn't make you a man-hater! Neither does it make you (necessarily) a lesbian or a separatist. All these things are individual choices -- and if feminism agrees on one thing, it's that a woman's choices about her own life are paramount. If you support women's rights, you can (and, I think, should be) a feminist, without any other definitions being imposed on you.

Oh, and 'angry bitch'? That seems to be a label slapped on to any woman who speaks out forcefully, aggressively, or uncompromisingly -- traits typically considered good for men. Huh. Take a look next time you see a man called 'impassioned,' but a woman called 'emotional.' It's pretty eye-opening.

The thing is, these stereotypes often come from anti-feminists, as a way of discrediting (women) feminists. Want women's rights? That's just because you hate men. Criticize men or heterosexuality? That's just because you're ugly and undesirable. Speak out? You're a bitch. This has happened for a long, long time: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other figures in the suffragist movement were called ugly and unfeminine. Mary Wollstonecraft (the first well-known modern feminist) was called crazy. There's no need to refute feminist arguments when the makers of those arguments are seen as unreliable.

Yes, women who take the 'feminist' label risk those stereotypes. But being anything means risking stereotypes. Being a woman means risking stereotypes. The point of feminism is to break those assumptions. The first step is to disbelieve them yourself -- I did, when I finally realized that 'feminazism' was neither the only, nor the dominant, attitude of feminism. Then you change other people's minds by calling yourself a feminist and proving that the label isn't just reserved for the ugly, the bitch, the misandrist.

Men face different difficulties in taking on the feminist label. ratzeo made a good point when he told me that being a male feminist is 'acceptable' in a similar way that being a gay man is 'acceptable' (similar way, not similar *extent*). The official line is that it's okay; but you risk criticism or ridicule, usually targeted at your masculinity. (You're not a 'correct' or 'good enough' man, somehow.)

What can I say to that except what I already have -- it takes people rejecting stereotypes for other people to let go of them. It's not easy, no, but it never is.

The last question, and often the biggest one facing ENFs, is men's rights. While feminism is (usually ... you can't say what feminism 'is' with impunity, hah) about equality between the sexes, the word (and the political focus) is on women's rights. Why the disparity, some people think. Why not be equalist or egalitarian?

See, egalitarianism would be great if what we needed was a philosophy. What I mean is, if all we needed was a guide for our behavior in an ideal society (which is what I think is what philosophy approximates), I would wholeheartedly be an equalist.

But what we need right now is a political movement. Women are *not* equal to men, and there is no such thing (right now) as 'post-feminism.' I'll use the catchphrase I see tossed about: I'll be a post-feminist when there's a post-patriarchy. We're not in a post-patriarchy: that's why you can make jokes about "If women ruled the world ..." It's because they don't. And they don't hold equal power. If that were the case, such jokes wouldn't even make sense.

The idea of 'patriarchy' isn't a conspiracy theory. Patriarchy isn't a bunch of wrinkled old men sitting in a shadowy room and cackling evilly about how they'll oppress Teh Wimminz this time. There are a small number of men (and some women) who actively took or take power for men, and others who tried or try to keep that power for men (using political, economic, social, cultural tools). The rest of 'patriarchy' is complacence, from men and women who do not challenge the status quo -- men by unconsciously and unquestioningly enjoying their privileges, women by unconsciously and unquestioningly accepting their inferiority. (What are these privileges, this inferiority? It depends on the feminist whom you ask, so I'll leave that question open.)

The ones who say patriarchy (and therefore feminism) is over aren't just complacent men, though. Far from it. Women have been complacent, even complicit, themselves. Sadly, those who do say this are often women who are Western/white, wealthy, and heterosexual, or those who enjoy their privileges. (I say it like that to include people like me -- I'm Chinese, but 'safe' from most oppression because because I'm rich and straight.) The common line from these privileged women is something like, "Well, *I* don't experience oppression, so I don't see why we need feminism anymore."

The problem is that these women represent a small, lucky percentage of the female population. What about non-Western women? Poor women? Minority women? Lesbians? Women who are discounted because they're just 'dumb sluts'? From where I sit in suburban America, it's hard to see the inequalities (on the surface). But a shift in perspective is all you need. Take a look at international feminist activism, and the difficulties it faces. Ask a divorcee on welfare how her ex-husband is faring, economically, to see how the courts treated her. Read a transcript of a rape trial to see how a woman has to prove herself 'worthy' of being a victim.

After curing your own ignorance (which I'm still learning to do), insisting on being an ENF because feminism isn't 'necessary' is like saying, "I don't experience the hardship myself, so I don't see what the problem is." No person would say that, right? Okay, no decently moral person would say that.

Right. Men's rights. Does feminism ignore them? No, I don't think so. Sure, the *focus* is on getting women their rights. The reason for that is: that's where the work needs to go. Simple as that.

An example that will hopefully illuminate: I support gay rights. I think gay people should be able to marry, adopt, share insurance, etc. (not to mention enjoy basic human rights and not be harassed or attacked). But do people make a fuss about "Why aren't you working for heterosexuals' rights too??" Certainly not. Only some people (i.e., extremist conservatives) think that working for gay rights means taking away straights' rights.

Heterosexuals, like men, are the dominant social group. They *have* the rights associated with being dominant. (I know that not all males have rights. Poor men, gay men, Latino men, etc. lack some rights. But they lack them *because* they are poor, gay, etc., not *because* they are men. Women lack certain rights *because* they are women, hence the focus on women's rights. Does that make sense?) Giving gay people, or women, more rights will necessarily take some power away from heterosexuals, or men, because the power will be more equally distributed. But this will not (hopefully) take away their deserved rights. Thinking that working for A's rights means "OMG you're going to take away B's rights!" is just a touch paranoid.

Women just want -- women just need -- equal rights. (What does that mean, you ask? The exact same treatment? Special consideration? Again, that's a question whose answer differs according to each feminist. I have mine, but this is already a god-awful long essay.) These rights are good things for women and men to work for, and 'feminist' is a good thing for women and men to be called.



And why can I write 2000 word LJ posts while I'm at work? Because sometimes they give me a ton of jobs, but sometimes I have noooothing to dooooo. w(_o_)w