Punkass Marc disagrees with my last post that takes the position that men can claim the title of feminist. He lists several reasons. First, he thinks that men, accustomed to male privilege as we are, have such a strong desire to dominate any debate we enter that it is only natural for us to insist on being included in every group, including feminists. Second, he feels that by claiming full membership status, we are also implicitly claiming the right to serve in a leadership position in the feminist movement. Marc thinks it would be better if we called ourselves "pro-feminists," or perhaps "feminist supporters," so that we can indicate our support for the movement without also implying that we are qualified to lead it.
Regarding Marc's first point, I think it's true that men are used to dominating the debates we enter*. Insofar as we should be aware of it, I agree with him. No good can come from shutting out valuable participants in any conversation, and that goes double when it comes to men dominating a discussion about feminism -- a movement in which men's participation simply isn't as important as women's. However, I disagree that a man calling himself a feminist is automatically dominating the debate or making feminism about men. Calling oneself a feminist is dominating the debate, but calling oneself a "pro-feminist" isn't? Frankly, I don't see the difference. When it comes to turning a discussion about feminism into a discussion about ourselves, the labels we choose for ourselves and each other aren't nearly as important as how we behave when actually engaging in discussion or debate. As a precautionary note, Marc's point is well taken. But as a reason not to call oneself a feminist, I think it falls flat.
Marc's second problem with men calling themselves feminists is that by claiming the label, we would be claiming full status as feminists, and thus implicitly claiming the right to lead the movement. This strikes me as an odd argument. By registering in the Democratic party, do I thereby implicitly claim the right to lead it, too? I would say no, but even if your answer is yes, what does that really mean? I can't become a leader of the Democratic Party without a whole lot of other Democrats deciding that it seems like a good idea to follow me. Likewise, any man who is under the mistaken impression that he is going to take over the feminist movement by fiat is in for a rude awakening. Leaders derive their power to lead from the people they are leading. In my experience, clueless men who attempt to explain to feminists how feminism should work are quickly set straight. The idea that any man would be able to assume a leadership role that he hasn't earned is not only insulting to the autonomy of feminists, it also isn't borne out by experience.
Both of these arguments strike me as being somewhat anti-feminist. They both share the hidden premise that feminists just won't know how to handle men who are bold enough to call themselves feminists.
In addition, I'm not especially fond of the terms Marc puts forward as alternatives. The first time I heard someone call himself a "pro-feminist," what I heard was "I myself do not agree with the tenants of feminism enough to claim the label, but I support the gist of what they're trying to do." I suspect that this is how most people unfamiliar with the inner workings of the feminist movement would interpret the term, too. The only way most people will ever know that a "pro-feminist" or "feminist supporter" is the same thing as a feminist, only male, is if they end up in the movement. But as I said in my first post, what you call yourself doesn't matter to me nearly as much as how your words and actions support feminism.
On that score, from the little I know about Marc, he strikes me as a good ally.
* I am well aware of the irony of seeing two feminist/pro-feminist men trade trackbacks about what constitutes dominating the feminist debate.
0 comments:
Post a Comment