Mom, Dad... I'm a feminist.

Now that I have one posting under my belt, I've already started to receive some comments on this blog.  Most of the comments are from friends and they are mainly encouraging.  I have gotten one comment from a male friend that is a bit confounding though.  To paraphrase, he said, "I used to believe what you believe about feminism but then I researched it some more and that got me quite alienated and depressed".  Basically he said men can't be feminists.  He then went on to give me a list of resources that I should look at, that look quite interesting.

While the book suggestions are extremely helpful, the comment about, men not being able to be feminists, was extremely disappointing not to mention condescending.  It was disappointing because it signals exactly what I was talking about when I said that feminism is a marginalized ideology, and because it is a marker of problems with thinking about agency, and authorship.  If we say that men cannot care about feminism because they are not women, does that mean that we then have to also say that non-aboriginal people cannot care about first-nations issues because they are not first nations?  Or that straight people can't care about gay rights, or white people for racial equality, or whatever?

The frustration that my friend expressed was because he was unable to find some common ground on which to stand with "official" feminists.  He wanted to be included but all his research told him that he cannot be.  That all men are the problem, instead of, patriarchal societal structures which create toxic gender stereotypes, are the problem.

The real reason I started this blog.

I do not believe that I am being naive, when I say that I can be a feminist.  While I am aware that there is a great deal written about how all men are oppressors, and all men are the enemy, I also know that this is not the majority opinion.

Like another friend of mine said, "there are a LOT of different "feminisms", but I see feminism as basically meaning that women and men deserve the same rights, and that it's worthwhile to study ways in which cultures have caused gender-based bias and oppression, so we can all have more freedom AND respect for one another."  This sounds pretty good.  Haven't gone over to the dark side yet.

Apparently this is the true face of feminism according to  this site.

But I believe that I am getting ahead of myself.  All this talk about patriarchy, agency, toxic gender stereotypes, and whatnot.  I think it's worthwhile to start at the bottom with a definition.  A good place to begin my journey might be by starting with a "lowest common denominator" definition of feminism.  One that would cover the most ground and provide some sort of compass for my explorations.  Probably the best source for lowest common denominator definitions is Wikipedia. 


Here's what it has to say. "Feminism refers to movements aimed at defining, establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women."  Alright.  This sounds pretty good as well.  Can't really argue with wanting to bring about equality.  Maybe it's just that I've watched too much Star Trek, but equality seems like it would be pretty nice, and maybe a lot of fun.  Not to mention all that galavanting around the galaxy and whatnot.

Or would it...

The war of the sexes just got sexier.

Anyway, so now we have a very basic working definition of what feminism is.  But can men be a part of this?  Well I certainly think so.  Further down the wikipedia site there is a lot of really encouraging stuff regarding men and the struggle for women's rights.  There is however one bit that says, 

Other feminist women argue that men cannot be feminists, being incapable simply because, in terms of their acculturation, they are not women. They maintain that men are granted inherent privileges that prevent them from identifying with feminist struggles, thus making it impossible for them to identify with feminists.

To me this sounds more like a problem with naming rather than a problem of inclusion.  That the idea of men calling themselves feminists would in a sense dilute to power of when women identify themselves as feminists.  Ok that's fine.  I don't really agree, and I'm going to do it anyway.

What about women who say that all men are oppressors?  Well obviously I don't agree there either.  I don't think I really need to point out that as a man, I had the luck of being born in a very privileged position, but any feminist ideology that does not eventually include men is inevitably doomed to failure.  There can be no equality without inclusion.

"I'm so sick of that douchbag calling himself a feminist.  Just look at that idiot baking a cake."

By now you might be thinking to yourself, okay, okay, enough already!  So you consider yourself a feminist.  Big deal.  Get on with it.  Surely your blog isn't going to consist of wikipedia and dumb pictures?  While that might not be such a bad idea, and not to mention, highly entertaining, I have been doing some research.  Hard to believe I know.

Next week!  The feminist book club.  A review of bell hooks' All About Love: New Visions!  And more wikipedia and dumb pictures!