Yes! Men can be feminists. Feminism is not just about raising women out of socially placed boxes, but about doing the same for men. My fiance and I have a joke between us where we call ourselves "equalists" instead of feminists. It makes the movement seem more like it's for everyone than just for women.

I think the same can be applied to white people. Just because they're in a position of privilege doesn't mean that they can't see that that's wrong and work towards equality among the races. Or hets working for non-het rights.

Men can absolutely be feminists; the extent of their understanding of the personal toll sexism takes is limited, but they are certainly able to recognize and work to fight sexist culture.

In the same way that women can be part of the problem, men should be part of the solution.

After reading Guyland, I was packing my bags for the separatist compound. This book is really heartening.

I think men can be, as well, but I do not think much of the movement is conducive to it.

I have watched this blog for quite a while and I enjoy it because it is often thought-provoking (read: I find a lot that I disagree with).

However, I see a lot of things that are alienating.

Foe instance, whenever I see the comment, "what about the menz?" I think that this is an issue where feminists really do not care about the effect on men. If, as Destra suggests, the "spirit" of feminism (if not the name) is one of "equalism," feminists should simply assume that, for every (maybe not "every") problem women face, it is legitimate to consider how men are affected by it. This is often dismissed.

Along those lines, many issues that greatly affect men are simply ignored, even though they seem to be appropriate topics for a feminist blog.

In addition, I find the whole notion of "privilege" to be somewhat of a misnomer. Much of what is described as "privilege" is what I see as the way things ought to be for everyone.

That statement requires clarification. I know that there was a blog entry within the last few months about 50 ways in which privilege manifests itself (or something to that effect). For most of them, I thought, "yeah, that is how the world should be." I do not make my way through the day worrying about whether I will be subjected to derogatory remarks based on my race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything. And, if I am, it does not bother me, because I do not take such impersonal attacks personally. Does that make me privileged? Maybe. But, on the other hand, I think everyone should such a mind-set. What is described as privilege should be the goal of feminism. So, I have to disagree with Destra on that: privilege is not a bad thing. Privilege should be the position everyone is in.

So, would I call myself a feminist? Probably not. Of course, like many people, I agree with many of the principles of first-wave feminism. However, that no longer seems to be enough to be considered a feminist. And, I see much in the current wave of feminism that has little interest in the spirit of equality that Destra mentions.

-Jut

I am a man, and would describe myself as feminist. As other commenters have noted, my actual experiences with the negative effects of patriarchy are limited (being both white, and male), however, I do have an understanding as to how they work, and am able to identify them when they occur. In somewhat of an ironic anecdote, it was me who turned my mom on to feminism; it is beyond awesome to hear my nearly 60 year old, cradle catholic mom, call out patriarchy on a near daily basis!

P.S. Just recently became turned on to this site by chance; Please keep up the awesome and valuable work.

-Andrew

Men can absolutely be feminists; it's about what's in your head and heart, not what's between your legs.

Jut Gory, I agree that it's important to consider how men are affected by the things we discuss, because women obviously don't live in vacuums and men are important too. However, I do not agree that those discussions deserve equal time. Your entry seemed to suggest that you dismiss privilege because you don't feel that it affects you (it does), but it's important to remember that if one group is privileged, the other is oppressed. That's why we focus on women's issues: women are oppressed, and men are not. Yes, many things suck for men that feminism can and should change (not being "allowed" to show emotion is the most commonly cited example), but I'd rather spend my energy fighting for a group that's actually oppressed than a group for which some things aren't as great as they could be.

My boyfriend's mother took him to her classes at NYU while she was getting her masters (he was 8) and he attributes his feminism to her. She raised him alone and she taught him well. He cannot always understand the things I go through, but the fact that he cannot empathize does not make him less of a feminist IMO.

Jut-

It is called privilege because it is an advantage that is extended to some but denied to others based on inherent traits like race, gender, etc. A privilege is of course necessarily something desirable; the point is that its exclusive status based on discrimination is not. Recognizing that you have this advantageous thing where others are unjustly denied it is the point of the exercise.

And here is Melissa on "what about the menz" from her amazing Feminism 101 series:

"As long as there are men, who would ostensibly be part of the "humanist" movement, yet retain a visceral and violent reaction to the feminine, there is no foundation for a sexless, "humanist" movement."
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-feminism-and-humanism.html

Kate, I second that.

Jut, the notion of privilege is not a misnomer. You're right that it should be that way for everyone. Should. That's the point. It isn't that way. And that's why feminists talk about it.

Main Entry:
1priv·i·lege Listen to the pronunciation of 1privilege
Pronunciation:
\?priv-lij, ?pri-v?-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date:
12th century

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

What Kate said: "it's about what's in your head and heart, not what's between your legs."

What bell hooks said:

"Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression. This was a definition of feminism I offered in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center more than 10 years ago [in 1985]. It was my hope that at that time that it would become a common definition everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy."

(page 1, Feminism is For Everyone: Passionate Politics)

Kate,
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a tenet of feminism that women AND men are oppressed by the Patriarchy.

But, to address some topics that come to mind. This site often has blog entries about rape. I do not think I have ever seen an entry regarding the numerous instances of statutory rape of boys by their teachers (even though these instances have become increasingly common in the news).

In addition, I do not believe I have seen any outrage about how these cases are handled by the criminal justice system.

Granted, part of the problem is tha way the "Patriarchy" views sexual activities of boys. However, the other part of it is that while feminism seems to want to address rape, it does not seem to care about the issue if the victim is a male.

And, it is fine if you want to say that you want to focus your energies on the truly oppressed (without getting into a dispute about oppression olympics), as long as you acknowledge that that is a big reason why I think modern feminism will fail to appeal to many men. Men are generally inclined to be sympathetic to the needs of women (even if out of a notion of Chivalry). But, as feminism tries to break those barriers down, the failure of feminism to address problems facing men will convey to many men that feminism really does not offer a full solution and, thus, is inherently flawed in its method for seeking equality.

-Jut

Jut, the reason something is a "privilege" is because one group has it and the other doesn't. Of course it's desireable, we're not trying to erase many of the things that are privileges, we're trying to make them available for everyone. Such as your example of going through the day without being subjected to derogatory remarks. Which, as you put it, is the way the world should be.

re: your "what about the men?" question, that question often appears not as a geniune question wondering how men fit into a feminist world, but as a direct attack on instituting feminist ideals. As in, "Don't take that away from me by equalizing things, I benefited from your being in a submissive place and I'm not willing to give that up to bring you to the same level as me."

And despite its name, men CAN be feminsts. Feminism recognizes that men are humans and have feelings, rejecting the idea that boys don't cry. Feminism recognizes men as fathers, and fathers as parents who matter.

Even though the stereotype is that feminists are rejecting men, I think that's absolutely untrue. We're rejecting society's view of how men and women should act. Since women have generally gotten the short end of the stick in society's eyes, and we're trying to rectify that, of course it sometimes seems anti-men. But a careful analysis of the movement should refute that.

There have been four identifiable categories of the recent men's movement: conservative, recuperative masculinity, men's rights, and pro-feminist. I think it may be time to eliminate the category 'pro-feminist' in favor of a term that includes men as integral to the movement rather than simply allies. Some advocate for 'gender justice.' That might be a good term.

Lots of replies in the time I was composing my last message. More response to Jut:

You bring up the issue of feminism not bringing up male rape, or molestation of young boys. Part of the reason is that rape overwhelmingly happens to women, not by them. Therefore, it's a concern for women to address the issue - why are women overwhelmingly raped compared to men? How can we stop it? What's causing it?

However, MRAs somehow seem to take this as us saying 1) men aren't raped, 2) it's not terrible if they are, 3) victimized men don't matter, etc.

That's absolutely NOT the case. MRAs also use female-on-male violence statistics to try to derail arguments and villainize women - which is BESIDE the point. We're not condoning it, we're not denying its existance, we're not saying female victims are more important than male victims. MRAs use strawman arguments here to derail things.

Of COURSE male victims matter. It turns my stomach when I hear men saying that teenage boys can't be taken advantage of because of COURSE they want to lose their virginity to a hot, older teacher. I hate that men themselves seem to deny that men can feel victimized by women - it perpetuates the idea that all men are sex hungry all the time with everyone.

I don't know what my final point is. If you want to talk about female victimization of men with us, to separate yourself from the MRAs, you've gotta discuss it in a way that says, "Well, male-perpetrated domestic violence is invalidated by the fact that women victimize men, too." Yes, women victimize men, some people are just jackasses no matter what their gender is. But in a sociological movement, we also mainly address alarming trends, one of which is the fact that females are victimized by men at a much higher rate than men are victimized by women.

Whoops, left out words in my last paragraph. Amended:

I don't know what my final point is. If you want to talk about female victimization of men with us, to separate yourself from the MRAs, you've gotta discuss it in a way that doesn't say, "Well, male-perpetrated domestic violence is invalidated by the fact that women victimize men, too." Yes, women victimize men, some people are just jackasses no matter what their gender is. But in a sociological movement, we also mainly address alarming trends, one of which is the fact that females are victimized by men at a much higher rate than men are victimized by women.

Alixana,

Not to derail the thread but, as you brought it up, it seems to be fair game.

Many in the men's rights movement would find it disingenuous for you to say that feminism acknowledges that fathers matter. One of the issues they want is a presumption of shared parenting in divorce cases, unless there is proof of unfitness or abuse. My understanding is that NOW opposes such a presumption. This position is tantamount to saying that fathers do not matter.

(Of course, this gets into many tangential issues, most of which stem from a basic biological difference in men and women: the ability to give birth and the legal inequalities that follow from that (most notably: abortion)).

However, I have to disagree with you that MRA's use certain issues or straw man arguments to try to derail things here. (Of course, there are always going to be those types, but not every MRA is like that.) I do not believe that holds true for those genuinely concerned about such issues. However, I can understand their feeling that, as those issues are not addressed on this site, feminists either do not care about the suffering of men, or they do not see that their cause SHOULD BE the same cause that feminism espouses.

For the latter, they probably believe that, for that reason, feminism is an inadequate solution, because, in spite of their loud protestations, they are either ignored or vilified.

-Jut

Well Jut, the thread is about whether men can be feminists, not whether Feminism should be redefined to suit the MRAs. Sarah Palin has attempted that enough, thankyouverymuch. I think Feminism, and especially Feministing, does a damn good job of addressing inequality and intersectionality. We do talk about men- about fathers and young boys and male victims of the patriarchy. The reason Feminism exists is because women are more drastically effected by this patriarchy than men. That's where you are missing the point. And it's irritating to have to explain that over and over again. That's why sometimes there is the knee jerk eyerolling at "What about the menz!?"

You are making me suspect that you're an MRA troll, and if that's not the case then there's obviously something very wrong with your argument style.

Leonard Pitts Jr. the feminist (also an African American man) says that his own 17-year-old daughter suffers from what "Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, calls . . . the I'm-Not-A-Feminist-But syndrome."

But Pitts continues, and clarifies, "So for the record, I am a feminist. My daughter is, too."

Worth the read, again:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004172504_lenny10.html

T-Monster,
The question was: can men be feminists?

Of course, the answer is: yes (end discussion, no more comments necessary).

However, I have only stated why I do not think I am a feminist. In doing so, I have tried to point out what I perceive to be inadequacies in feminism. But, that is not to say I think feminism should change to suit MRA's; at the same time, I think MRA's are concerned about many issues that feminism SHOULD be concerned about. If true, that is a valid criticism of the movement.

As for blog entries on fathers and young boys, I do not think I can recall a single blog entry that addresses inequalities that those groups face. However, here are three issues where they get negative treatment on this site (either in the blog entry itself, or the comments): underfunding of prostate cancer research compared to breast cancer research (I admit, while the former is more common, the latter is generally more deadly), the lack of birth control options for men compared to women (i.e. no male birth control pill), and the lagging performance of boys in the school system.

But, with all due respect, I do not think I am missing the point. You may say that women are more drastically affected by the Patriarchy than men. However, when the primary race was between Obama and Clinton, there was a great call on this site not to engage in "oppression olympics." Simply put, there should be no contest about who is more opporessed.

Does that hold true when talking about men and women? Or not? If oppression is oppression, it appears to be the professed cause of this site to fight it.

Am I wrong?

-Jut

Oppression Olympics between people who are actually oppressed.

So yes. You're Wrong. And you're a troll.

OK, I haven't carefully read all the comments so far, but I do think that feminism could deal with fatherhood and the male experience better. My partner is a very involved, hands-on dad, and it's depressing to see the way his parenthood is dismissed by our culture. Father's are basically just viewed as glorified babysitters who are most likely incompetent and in need of constant supervision. This is harmful to both men and women, and it would be great if, as feminists, we aggressively took isue with this attitude.

I also think these issues really become real to you when you find yourself raising a son. My best friend is a single mom to a boy, and we've spent hours talking about how our culture constructs boyhood and how to avoid all the crap that's basically laid on a boy from birth. So yes, these are real, legitimate feminist issues, and the best that we can hope for is that dads and sons can really see themselves as feminists and live their lives accordingly.

"I think MRA's are concerned about many issues that feminism SHOULD be concerned about."

Hmmmmm, which group is it that calls for more equal parenting responsibilities? Feminists.
We also support expanded birth control options for men, and have done so on this very site.
Additionally, we are some of the few people who can be counted on to criticize prison-rape jokes and other "humor" involving rape against men.
Feminism is the answer to many things MRAs view as problems. But since we call ourselves feminists and don't fall all over ourselves to boost their egos, MRAs continue to consider us the enemy.
Breast cancer research gets more funding than prostate cancer research because WOMEN THEMSELVES are out busting their asses to get the money. It didn't fall into the Komen Fund's lap, you know.

And lol @ your quote about the Oppression Olympics. To compete in the games, you have to be oppressed.

As far as MRAs' desire for a presumption of shared parenting - I do not know much about the substance of their argument. I have always, always wondered why MRAs don't see shared ground with feminists on parenting issues. Feminist women sure don't want to be assumed to be the primary caregiver based only on their possession of breasts. The disagreement between MRAs and NOW may rest on the word "presumption" - I've barely, barely dabbled in domestic relations, but as an attorney, the word "presumption" signals to me that it's an argument over the legal standard to use, not an argument over whether fathers should have custody/shared custody of their kids.

My cousin's husband is a work-from-home dad and always drops their son off at kindergarden and picks him up in the afternoon. The teacher actually asked him if he was having a hard time finding a job in the current economy, assuming that my cousin's husband was only available for his son because he was unemployed. He and my cousin and I were all fuming at the idea that none of the mothers would ever be subjected to that sort of questioning - it's only natural that THEY would be the stay-at-home parents, of course. You better bet your ass that feminists would consider this a negative, anti-father result of patriarchy.

BTW, the Oppression Olympics between Obama and Hilary supporters was a racism vs. sexism thing, not a men vs. women thing.

I agree, Rachel. And I think Jut brings up some issues that need to be addressed more- the way we educate our young men, the way we view fathers (so they don't turn out like his trolling ass).

I don't want to be dismissive when valid arguments are raised. But when I say Jut is missing the point, it's because his circuitous arguments are all leading down the same "what about the men" road. Are men negatively affected by patriarchy? Absolutely? Are they oppressed? No.

And I was so happy about this thread because I have great men in my life who identify as feminists, and great ones who don't identify, but live feminist ideals. Somehow I knew a troll would pop up.

I didn't mean to put a question mark after "Absolutely"!! Sorry!

SarahMC,
You said:

"Additionally, we are some of the few people who can be counted on to criticize prison-rape jokes and other "humor" involving rape against men."

There is a rape issue in this country that is not only largely ignored as a problem, but it is a frequent punch-line of jokes. That is the epidemic of prison-rape in this country, something largely affecting men.

Has this blog addressed it, because I do not recall seeing it.

Also, your remark that I am not oppressed leads me to conclude that the Patriarchy does not oppress white men. Is that the case?

Finally, I think my comments here have been nothing if not respectful. I stated at the outset that I would not call myself a feminist. I have attempted to explain why in a calm, critical, and thoughtful manner. For that, I have been called a troll.

Thus, as an unoppressed man whose views are not taken seriously (in fairness, some here have been willing to engage in constructive dialogue), does it surprise you that I may not want to be a part of a movement that, while espousing equality, relegates me to a status of second-class (obviously, that remark is not directed at the bloggers, so much as some of the commenters)?

-Jut

LOL, Jut.

I'm totally tearing up for you. That. Was. So. Moving.

Please take a class in critical thinking, I think you missed a few lessons.

Alixana,
If you are an attorney, I will put the presumption in our jargon.

I think the "presumption" in question is a rebuttable presumption that both parents be granted joint physical custody, as opposed to sole physical with visitation. Of course, it is rebuttable if there is abuse, etc.

I think that this is a necessary extension of feminism, insofar as feminism would want to eliminate the last vestiges of the "tender years" doctrine.

From my point of view, there are many areas on which MRA's and feminists should agree, but, for some reason, they don't. For my part, I think there is plenty of blame to go around for that.

And, yes, I did know that the Obama/Clinton issue was a gender race divide. But, I think my analogy is still appropriate if we are talking about "who is more hurt by the Patriarchy?"

-Jut

And the argument against having that presumption is what, that split custody is too taxing on the kids, and it's better for them to have a stable life with one parent and there should be a presumption of sole custody with visitation? That there shouldn't be any sort of presumption at all, and that all cases need to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Or is it something else?

The thing about this issue for me is that when I see MRAs bringing it up, usually in comment threads in feminist blogs, they seem to blame their lack of custody on feminism - feminism is ruining their lives, it's taking away from what they enjoyed before. Which I've never understood, because any prejudice in a judge's mind about a woman being more suited for childrearing is just a result of a history of women staying at home while men are at work - the very thing feminism is trying to explode.

Jut, go here. You'll find this article especially useful.

ShifterCat,
I am not sure that those links are appropriate. After all, this is a blog about men and feminism (granted, there is a race component that has not been addressed). So, I think my comments are not outside the scope of the thread because they have looked at the topic. "WATM?" is not a valid criticism in this space.

Alixana, I agree. Many who bring up the issue of shared parenting are angry individuals who blame feminism (just as there are angry feminists that do not want to engage in civil discussion). But, yes, I think they are trying to accomplish many of the same things.

(As for why there is opposition to the presumption of shared parenting-and I will keep this brief, because it probably is a bit off-topic- is that abusive men could use that presumption to intimidate or abuse women. Of course, the other points you mention are valid concerns.)

-Jut

It pains me to say it, but as a male reader who without question considers himself a feminist, this site can be alienating.

There are comments that sometimes really try to pack on unnecessary guilt and culpability.

Jut's comments are interesting about patriarchy. Who is/are the propagator(s) of patriarchy?

As a male feminist, I do see myself as a victim of patriarchy. Supporting women's rights, quelling sexist jokes and rape punch lines, calling out my male friends who are anti-woman when their girlfriends aren't around--that makes me less of a "man" in the eyes of some people.

I have felt this same way about some racial issues, too. Lumping me in with white male misogynists just because I'm a white male is equally terrible.

We are all oppressed for one reason or another. To say that a white male is absent from the "Oppression Olympics" is frankly absurd. To reduce me (or anyone else) to simply a white male, overlooking the million other aspects of me is just dumb. And it's just as bad as saying all women are stupid or should wash dishes.

To call me just a white male is to overlook the fact that I am a feminist raised by a low-income single mother living in southeastern Virginia. To say I'm not oppressed is so silly!

Please ban him. I googled him. He's a Glenn Sacks troll.

AND he's trolled several Feministing threads already. I love his take on Roe vs. Wade, personally.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010859.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/011671.html

Really. What is it with trolls? Why? Do you have nothing better to do than inflame and be ignorant? What is the POINT? We're just a bunch of angry feminists, right? And we need to listen to you because you pretend to be open to discourse?

Can we have a feminist fuck you for sympathy trolls?????

Troll rant over.

OMG what about the JUT?

Seriously, way to illustrate how to takeover a feminist discussion with concerns about men. Granted, in this case we are discussing men, but we are discussing male disenfranchisement by the Patriarchy, not male disenfranchisement by feminism.

This comment is not for Jut. This comment is for everyone who is far more tolerant (or maybe more naive) than I and actually bothered to address him. Stop now. If it was possible to reach him, he would not have gone there in the first place.

@ Jake:"Who is/are the propagator(s) of patriarchy?"

Well, for starters most major organized religions preach explicit male superiority, which is the cornerstone of patriarchy. Also, having mostly all-knowing male deities implies male superiority as well.

Then there's the fact that in our modern economies traditionally female labor generally tends to be unpaid or poorly paid, which will always place it second tier because it does not directly generate economic capital.

Next, although the fault of no one, males are driven to ensure paternity of their children, thus promulgating such rituals as the renaming of adult women upon marriage (a sort of public acknowledgment that the woman and any subsequent kid's are his) and through societies trying to maintain virginal status of women prior to marriage through brute force or shame.

Next we have the situation where women happen to be physically weaker, which has turned into an excuse for not us not being able to perform certain tasks--when let's face it with today's technology and proper training most strength issues are simply not that relevant. Put another way, robotics, machinery and other equipment have been making jobs more efficient and safer for both men and women and will continue to do so.

Then there are a bunch of harmful memes, such as women being emotional and thus irrational, while men are logical...

It seems like both men and women hold these notions of male superiority on many levels, even though no one calls it that; and relatively few people even dare to challenge it.

"I am not sure that those links are appropriate. After all, this is a blog about men and feminism..."

I think you mean "blog post". And considering that you were whining about why we don't immediately kowtow to your wisdom when you ask "What about the menz?" on other threads, they certainly are appropriate links.

IF your claims about wanting to participate in discussions here in a respectful and informed way are true (and that's a pretty big if, considering your past behaviour), then you ought to read Feminism 101's FAQ articles in their entirety. If not, well, we must conclude that you're not interested in becoming less ignorant.

this is a bit late, but in the earlier comments of male rape there seemed to be an assumption that the assailants were female. statistically speaking, less than 1% of sexual assailants are female, although nearly 20% of survivors are male. interestingly, and speaking to sexual assault as a power play rather than a means of sexual gratification, most male assailants (including those assaulting other males) identify as heterosexual and are married. most report having access to satisfactory amounts of sex within their relationships.

Spike the cat:

I meant that mostly as a rhetorical question.

I also meant that it's hard to point out a single person or blame a whole group of people for patriarchy. I realize that religion, rightist politicians, and some men do propagate these ideas, but I surely do not think it is correct or fair to say that all men do it.

@ Jake--since you're not a-trollin', I'll answer one question for you: those specific aspects of your being (aka white and aka male) are indeed privileged in certain situations on your life, and we can unknowingly play to those predisposed patriarchal scripts for our benefit without being conscious of it. We have the privilege to not be aware that we have these advantages. In other aspects of your identity, there could be a completely different story, and thus the proof that we're all complex beings.

(And you can read Jut's posts for good examples of exploiting certain aspects of normative masculinity in his argument style. The intellectual appropriation of Feminist language and hyper-intellectual gentlemanly prose are good starting points.)

I look forward to this book. Thanks for mentioning Leonard Pitts, JK Gayle! I love reading his column.

Prof. Luke Harris is another academic doing fine work on Black male Feminists.

Frederick Douglass is an interesting historical case, because he was very much a Feminist for his time and was forced to navigate between Women's suffrage and more rights for Black men due to the social currents of his time. Fascinating person.

@ Jake,
Also, I think you can point to individuals as perpetrating patriarchy. I think you can point to almost every individual, male or female, as perpetrating patriarchy at some point or another.
Though most men I know would laugh at the idea that I am at all deferential, I have to constantly recognize and resist the tendency, in relationships, to defer to men. Even when they really REALLY don't deserve it.
Thus, I have, on occasion, perpetrated patriarchy by my own unconscious behavior. And I am a feminist woman.
Thus, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to ask each person, even white men, to analyze their own behavior and think about how it may be adding to the problem.

I sometimes get really confused by all of this. I'm a white male, born in an upper middle class family, went to a catholic high school and spend several years attending university. As one of the last Dutch men to be drafted I also spend time in the military. I'm told that my situation is due to me being an heir to the patriarchy. On the other hand I also know that in the EU 55% of the student population is female. and that women were never drafted.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the patriarchy doesn't exist. one thing I'm saying that in trying to identify it's effects, we're often pointing at the wrong things.
I work in IT, I'm fully aware that it's ridiculous that with 25% the company I work for has an above average number of female consultants. I'm fully aware of glass ceilings, unequal pay, belittling by doctors (male & female), sexual harassment, and the list goes on and on.

• I feel sad every time I hear that another woman is staying home to take care of the kids.
• I cringe every time a woman crosses the street in the dead of night, because men are not to be trusted.
• I hate not being able to be gallant without being second guessed. Yes I hold the door for women, and invalids, and children and men.
• I hate being thought less for disliking sports.
• etc. etc. etc.

Can a black man be a feminist. Yes!
Can a white man be a feminist. Yes!
I have long considered myself more of an egalitarian, not wanting to diffuse the issue.
Today I'll stand proud, and say that I'm a male feminist.

Sincerely
Robbert

p.s. Thank you J. K. Gayle, That quote by Bell Hooks is just what I needed.

@ Jake, who said:

"We are all oppressed for one reason or another. To say that a white male is absent from the 'Oppression Olympics' is frankly absurd."

Yes, only this is a feminist website, and although feminists are also particularly prone to take classism and ableism and other -isms into consideration, feminism is primarily about sexism--this post is primarily about sexism and racism--and white males are not racially or sexually oppressed. They are racially and sexually privileged. Period. They may look on their oppression due to class or disability etc. and sympathize with those who are sexually oppressed--and that's how male feminists can exist--but they cannot fully empathize. It's just psychologically impossible. I'm not going to pretend that even though I'm very open-minded, I can completely emphasize with people of color, because I'm white. I can sympathize mega-hard, and I do, but I will never completely understand. That doesn't make me racist, just as you being white and male doesn't automatically make you sexist or racist; but someone pointing out that you are not racially or sexually oppressed isn't the same as "lumping you in" with racist misogynists, the same way as my owning up to the fact that I have white privilege doesn't mean I'm calling myself a racist.

This topic, like all topics, has some kind of parameters. If you want to stage a more general Oppression Olympics elsewhere, go for it, but I really don't see the point.