Why I think he IS a feminist
Chris Clarke has a post up with the heart-stopping title, Why I’m Not A Feminist. Heart-stopping because surely if any man is a feminist, it’s Chris Clarke.
Chris’s point is that because he is a man, he is not entitled to call himself a feminist: “I am a sympathizer. I am a fellow traveler. At my best, I am an ally. But I am a member of the class against which feminism is aimed.”
In the comment thread that follows, the wonderful Dr. Virago takes issue with this:
Feminism is a political position that can be held by anyone. “Woman” is (perhaps) an identity that only some can claim. You are not a woman, but you are a feminist, given your political claims above.
My sentiments exactly. I grew up believing that feminism was the only possible stance for an enlightened human being. I expected any enlightened man to identify as a feminist, just as I expected that from any enlightened woman.
I was shocked the first time a man close to me eschewed the feminist label. “I’m a man, so I can’t really be a feminist, can I?” he said. I understood the argument intellectually, but emotionally I felt betrayed. It felt to me as if he were saying, “I wish you luck and everything — I’ll be waving from the sidelines — but it’s really not my problem, is it?”
Since then I’ve learned that it’s women themselves (some of them) who insist that men can never be feminists, only “pro-feminists.” Men like Chris Clarke are honoring this position when they refuse to claim a mantle that some women say can only be ours. I’ve adapted to this sensibility in discourse, and acquiesce by using the locution “pro-feminist” to refer to men. But I hate it. It rankles. It feels completely, utterly wrong.
If feminism means dismantling sexism, if it means transforming the world so that males and females participate equally in humanity — which is what I think it means — then by definition it is not the purview of women alone. It is men’s struggle as well. The two halves of the human race must work together to remake our relationship to each other. We’re not talking about just a jail break from Patriarchy Prison. Feminism means the inmates go free, the wardens hang up their keys, the jailhouse gets demolished, and everybody joins together to say, “let’s not build any more of these shitpiles, okay?” It’s not gonna work unless everybody gets in on the act.
Furthermore, when men stand outside of feminism instead of identifying with it, their absence plays into the right-wing propaganda that feminists are just a bunch of man-hating feminazis. Christ almighty, the movement is already marginalized; the last thing we need is to make it even more exclusive. What do we gain by restricting the label “feminist” to women? Or for that matter, to only those women who are activists, or who happen to share our particular brand of feminist politics? Feminism needs to be seen as part of every enlightened person’s mental furniture, not as the radical rantings of a few fringe-dwellers.
Or as Tomato Nation said in far fewer words:
If you believe in, support, look fondly on, hope for, and/or work towards equality of the sexes, you are a feminist.
Yes, you are.
So to Chris Clarke I say: You are too a feminist. Yes, you are.
43 Responses to “Why I think he IS a feminist”
-
foilwoman says:
Ms. Socks, while I agree with you, part of what Mr. Clarke may be saying is that he is eschewing the “give me points for good intentions” benefits associated with a man calling himself a feminist. I have known a number of men who called themselves feminists who really only seemed to want to make sure they didn’t have the responsibilities of a traditional male role without ceding any power or economic benefit to a woman. He might be commenting on that, indirectly.
March 29th, 2006 at 10:22 am EST -
Ann Bartow says:
If Chris Clarke doesn’t want to call himself a feminist, why spend so much time and effort trying to flatter and cajole him into a label he doesn’t want?
-
Vinnie Vespisti says:
We have reached the tipping point with the ecosystem. The earth is crashing and no one, not even a totally concerted effort by every human on the planet can stop it. It is unlikely that any polar ice will survive 2050, or that the Atlantic conveyer will continue past that year. The rainforests will be gone sooner. Hydrocarbon emissions will make the oceans sufficiently acidic by 2500 that plankton cannot exist, eliminating the first link of the food chain and seriously affecting CO2>O2 conversion, only one of many irrevokable changes which will make the planet uninhabitable.
In the midst of this, religious factions are actively seeking nuclear weaponry (it is postulated that between 60 and 100 ’suitcase’ nuks that went missing in Russia have made their way to radical Islamists) and some of them are more than willing to kill thamselves in order to destroy the rest of mankind. That they can succeed is now a real pocssibility.
At this point some serious scientists quietly predict that the human race will not survive this eon, arab ~women~ are ‘cutting’ their daughters, Chinese women are drowning female babies and you are worried about patriarchy prison labels.
Vinnie thinks it is tunnel vision. Everyone should be equal. People who argue with that are probably ALL religious fundies. Instead of punishing men with the sins of their fathers who were doing what the priests and imams told them to do under penalty of death, why not realize that patriarchy is a religious mechanism, not strictly a male one. Freethinkers are not oppressors and inequality is the horrid and lingering result of superstition. Vinnie thinks viruses will once more become the dominant lifeform on earth and they are welcome to it.
-
Violet says:
If Chris Clarke doesn’t want to call himself a feminist, why spend so much time and effort trying to flatter and cajole him into a label he doesn’t want?
Flatter and cajole? No. I’m commenting on the way the term “feminist” has gotten restricted.
Twenty-five years ago I would have predicted that at the rate we were going, by now most Americans would identify themselves as feminists. Instead, the label has been successfully propagandized so that even most young women shun it. The core meaning of feminism has gotten lost, I think, and with it the sense that feminism is an enlightenment value that all right-thinking people should embrace.
foilwoman, I think you’re right, and the problem that you note exists. For me, though, the solution is not to say, “okay, men don’t get to be feminists.” It’s to say, “if you’re a feminist, then act like it, goddamnit, and take a hard look at your own privilege.”
-
Timothy Shortell says:
I think there is another aspect to this. I tend to call myself pro-feminist rather than feminist because of my expertise rather than my gender. That is, I know some feminist theory and, as a sociologist, am trained to see patterns in the social world, so I can often spot the manifestations of patriarchy in day to day life. On the other hand, feminism is more than just a description. It is an explanation. To call oneself a feminist implies an ability to use that theoretical perspective to explain features of the social world, not just to spot them. This is the main reason I read feminist blogs — to learn something.
I think there is a parallel in this regard to Marxism. I know a fair amount of Marx’s work, but I don’t call myself a Marxist, even though I am sympathetic with the goal of abolishing class differences.
I think it is selling feminism short to say that it is just the desire to abolish patriarchy. That is a difficult job which will require more than just desire. It also requires expertise.
-
Txfeminist says:
Thanks for the intro to Chris Clarke’s site, I’d never read it before. I will now, though!
I agree with your take on his post, too, btw.
-
Ann Bartow says:
So to Chris Clarke I say: You are too a feminist. Yes, you are.
Do you know him in other contexts than his blog? If so, I demur on this issue. But if you know him only through his blog, then why not take him at his word? I like his writings, and based on them he seems like a good person with an excellent value system, but if he doesn’t want to call himself a feminist, I feel we ought to respect his decision. Putting a label on a person who explicitly declines it seems like a bad idea to me. I’d love it if he decided he was a feminist, for all the reasons you articulate, but yikes, a person’s autonomous right to self-define is no small thing.
-
will says:
I’ve tried to self-define myself as normal, but VS keeps calling me things like “stalker” or “troll” or “asshole”.
I do agree with VS that you do not have to be a woman to be a feminist. That would be changing the definition of feminist. I think that labels are relatively useless tools. It doesnt really matter what I call myself or what others call me. It matters how I act.
Moreover, there seems to be something vaguely paternalistic about calling yourself an ally. “They need me to stick up for them!”
-
Chris Clarke says:
I should clarify a couple things.
1) I would be the last person to turn down being flattered and cajoled. Feminists of the world, do your worst. The spot beneath my ribcage on the left side is especially ticklish.
2) It is not so much that I don’t want to be called a feminist. It’s a fine title. It’s a huge honor that so many feminist women have responded to my post telling me that I’m a feminist. It’s just, well, a question of which feminists to listen to on the matter. For the record, I find Dr. Virago’s, and Jill’s, and Hissy Cat’s rebuttals on that thread extremely compelling. And it may be that there’s been a sea change among feminists, and that such usage is now considered acceptable. It certainly seems that way. The 1970s, as Dr. Socks will attest, is a foreign country, but to some degree it is my native land, and the gentle deflections of people like Dworkin and Laura X. stick with me.
3) I’m wondering if a situational approach might not be the best. To a sexist male or patriarchal-aligned female, I call myself a feminist. When I’m inadvertently in the same room as the meeting of the Goldman-Solanas Society’s Program Committee, I demur.
-
Chris Clarke says:
Moreover, there seems to be something vaguely paternalistic about calling yourself an ally. “They need me to stick up for them!”
Nah. More like “they deserve my support” mixed with “no one is free until no one is in chains.”
As they used to say in the Ethiopian restaurant to explain the concept of “family-style” service, an injera to one is an injera to all.
-
will says:
Arent those two paragraphs contradictory?
-
belledame222 says:
Injera is the bread?
Personally I have no problem with a man calling himself a feminist, or an ally if he prefers. I think I have a suspicion of who/what you might be indirectly referring to though, here, CC, and if so: heartfelt thanks. Which is in any case what I wanted to say for a particularly eloquent and funny smackdown of a certain male “feminist” who I *do* find extremely oversttepping and annoying, from about a month ago I think, and here is as good a point as any. You, ah, da man.
-
Chris Clarke says:
Arent those two paragraphs contradictory?
How?
-
Chris Clarke says:
I think I have a suspicion of who/what you might be indirectly referring to though,
Now see, I didn’t think it was at all indirect, seeing as I did everything up to mentioning the guy’s name.
-
Burrow says:
I used to think that men should be labeled “pro-feminist” or “allies” because women are the ones whos lives are on the line. (I know, you can make the same arguement for everyone.)
Now really I don’t give a flying fuck what you call yourself as long as you’re doing feminist work.
-
Burrow says:
And being an ally is just as important, mind you. When I am called one it is a great honour.
-
Violet says:
I’ve tried to self-define myself as normal, but VS keeps calling me things like “stalker” or “troll” or “asshole”.
When have I ever called you an asshole?
-
gordo says:
Chris–
So, you penetrate a feminst blog and seek to dominate the conversation? And you call yourself a feminist?
Also, have you ever been to Zemam’s on Broadway? I have a great anecdote for you if you have.
-
Chris says:
So, you penetrate a feminst blog
No.
and seek to dominate the conversation?
No.
And you call yourself a feminist?
No.
Also, have you ever been to Zemam’s on Broadway?
No.
-
Burrow says:
I ignore most of the commenters here, it might be better on your sanity if you did too.
-
Chris says:
Oh no! A double bind!
But I trust Burrow for some reason, so that makes it easy.
-
Alon Levy says:
Now really I don’t give a flying fuck what you call yourself as long as you’re doing feminist work.
Yeah, that’s my attitude here. Labels matter to me much less than real actions. Chris Clarke says he’s not a feminist; Wendy McElroy says she is. It doesn’t mean McElroy is more of an ally of women’s equality than Chris.
-
Pastor Pistle says:
But I trust Burrow for some reason, so that makes it easy.
-ChrisThou hast let a viper into thy midst. She will vipe you any second now.
-
Jim Deeny says:
Sometimes we dive headfirst intellectually into problems and it becomes some deep that we forget what the real problem was in the first place, when we let our eyes off the goal we see those frightful little things called obstacles and I doubt God would have given us the ability to dream without the possibility of making them come true, we’re all equal irregardless of gender, religion, race. Equality is my goal and I define who and what are my tiny obstacles, no one else.
-
foilwoman says:
One of the things that bothers me about a lot of academic discussion (and relationship discussion) is the almost (note I said almost) totally useless emphasis on words over deeds. Yes, words can have an impact, but anyone can mouth platitudes or “correct” labels, but actually doing good, helping the oppressed, and living one’s live in a non-oppressive manner (rather than calling oneself a feminist, whether male or female) matters much more. Yes, words can hurt, but I’d rather work for a boss who was a bit off with the language but understood the value of flex-time for a single mother (me) and encouraged my promotion and gave me good raises than a boss who never used the wrong words, but never supported me as an employee. Same with a relationship: give me the man who carries his weight and doesn’t restrict my freedom or expect me to be mommy rather than someone who says “We are partners” but is really a vampire. Deeds, not words.
-
Jim Deeny says:
-Foilwoman
You are correct about words and deeds, there’s no doubt about that. It’s funny how certain males can treat women like they are less equal, but YET, the same male that has a daughter see her date a high school boy gets pissed off when he sees her getting treated without equality. It’s like a double standard. That in itself should produce a thought in his mind to begin the process of good deeds toward equality, by seeing the contast between what he does and says.
-
Alon Levy says:
Yes, words can have an impact, but anyone can mouth platitudes or “correct” labels, but actually doing good, helping the oppressed, and living one’s live in a non-oppressive manner (rather than calling oneself a feminist, whether male or female) matters much more.
Can I sign my name below that?
It’s funny how certain males can treat women like they are less equal, but YET, the same male that has a daughter see her date a high school boy gets pissed off when he sees her getting treated without equality. It’s like a double standard.
It’s not a double standard. It’s the single standard that both the wife and the daughter are the man’s property. After all, people get angry when other people misuse their property all the time.
-
Jim Deeny says:
I see your point Alon, maybe the property owners should take the blinders off?
That would be nice, eh.
-
gordo says:
foilwoman–
As far as the words go, I think it’s mostly a matter of context. The boss who understands flex time might be a 60-something office manager who refers to the file clerks in his office as “my girls.”
Then the 30-something sexist salesman will wonder why he’s being subjected to a double standard because he gets only icy stares when he pokes his head in the office and says, “Will one of you ladies get me a cup of coffee?”
-
belledame222 says:
I am with foilwoman here.
-
will says:
Nice post foilwoman.
-
Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Should men be called feminists? says:
[...] The discussion in Chris’ comments - and also on Feministe and Reclusive Leftist - is fascinating (although the comments at Feministe are unfortunately ruined by an anti-feminist who won’t shut up). Interestingly, most of the folks agreeing with Chris are men (including Hugo), while most who disagree are women. For example, Dr. Virago eloquently responded to Chris’ argument: Leaving aside the whole “gender and sex are culturally contructed” argument, and assuming that there are definable identities such as “man” and “woman,” and accepting your claim that you are indeed a “man,” I still think you’re a feminist. There were white people who were abolitionists and civil rights activist, despite being neither slaves nor black; there are white collar labor activists (and indeed, lawyers especially are pretty necessary to the modern labor movement); there are straight people working tirelessly for gay rights; and so on. These political activities don’t make these activists black, working class, or gay, but they’re still activists. [...]
-
Burrow says:
Oh no! A double bind!
But I trust Burrow for some reason, so that makes it easy.
I figured it out! It’s because we’re both desert people at heart. It’s a rare breed. I know I don’t trust those people who question my love of west texas.
-
BAC says:
I think this paragraph says it all:
If feminism means dismantling sexism, if it means transforming the world so that males and females participate equally in humanity — which is what I think it means — then by definition it is not the purview of women alone. It is men’s struggle as well. The two halves of the human race must work together to remake our relationship to each other. We’re not talking about just a jail break from Patriarchy Prison. Feminism means the inmates go free, the wardens hang up their keys, the jailhouse gets demolished, and everybody joins together to say, “let’s not build any more of these shitpiles, okay?” It’s not gonna work unless everybody gets in on the act.
I think feminism is about rejecting gender roles, not about gender.
-
belledame222 says:
Duh me, I’d made my comment to CC before actually clicking on the post, but even so, I shoulda guessed that it was about the recent brouhaha and the bloggers who are most in the bright spotlight these days.
I was actually thinking of a much smaller, dimmer light. not really even worth bothering about, except a CC smackdown of it made me laugh some time back. in any case: I appreciate it.
-
will says:
It isnt nice to talk about me while I am standing right here.
-
belledame222 says:
Who? What? Huh? (I can’t HEEAAAARRRRR youuuuuu…)
-
will says:
hahaha
If you are going to insult, at least do it specifically.
-
Chris Clarke says:
If you are going to insult, at least do it specifically.
I think the American robin has the stupidest species name ever.
-
will says:
Chris, I give you credit. Too many people just insult birds without specifically naming which bird.
-
belledame222 says:
will: nobody posting here, doesn’t matter, my own axe to grind (surprise surprise), move along, nothing to see here.
-
belledame222 says:
!!!
“When the tu-tu-turdus migratorious comes bo-bo-boppin’ along…”
-
Chris Clarke says:
I’ve heard about them feminist axes. Takes longer to grind them, what with those double-edged blades.
