One of the buzz words that kept coming up at the pro-feminist men's conference at St. John's last week was accountability. How can men be accountable to women? How can pro-feminist men be accountable to the feminist movement?
There were no easy answers. Michael Kaufman, founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, wisely debunked the idea that there is some all-powerful feminist committee who serve as the accountability police. Obviously it is a diverse movement filled with folks who would consider some things okay and others offensive--as evidenced by the comment section of this very blog on a daily basis.
On the other hand, it does seem critical for men interested in doing feminist work and identifying with the feminism to be accountable to certain basic ideas--like the notion that men have, for too long, possessed a disproportionate amount of power in our society. This means that in feminist spaces, men should be cognizant of how much they talk, what sort of influence they exert, what kind of leadership they inhabit. But then again, shouldn't men and women always strive to be cognizant of these things.
And, of course, real accountability would come in creating a world where everyone gets to express their gender identity in whatever way feels most authentic, a world where no one would be forced to exist within a gender binary that didn't feel right for them. Men and women aside, this is the ultimate dream that we can be accountable for.
Anyone else have ideas about accountability within feminism? I sort of tie myself in knots trying to think through this one.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Question of Accountability in Feminism .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17060
How about purportedly feminist men demonstrating and living their so-called philosophies? I could say the same for anyone who does not live their principles, especially people who are strong and vocal about what they believe in, but it especially irks me when "feminist" and "progressive" men use pejoratives against women or disrespect them, especially in romantic/sexual situations. That makes you a hypocrite and no better than outwardly misogynistic and sexist men.
I agree, and it goes farther than just not being sexist. Feminist men should be anti-sexist, and call people out on their sexism when they see it. Sorry guys, but the only way you're good to the movement if you keep your feminism to yourself and other feminists is that there is one less asshole women have to deal with.
"the only way you're good to the movement if you keep your feminism to yourself."
Wouldn't that logic suggest that the WRC, or Men Against Violence, or other such groups should simply disband, and that male allies should drop out of coalitions?
No. Read it again:
the only way you're good to the movement if you keep your feminism to yourself and other feminists is that there is one less asshole women have to deal with.
Lilith is saying that keeping your feminism to yourself doesn't do anyone much good.
Ah. My bad. I need to drink more coffee in the mornings. Thanks.
Thanks for the clarification.
I was confused by its meaning too.
It does appear to suggest though that non-feminist men are assholes.
-Jut
Oh, and feminist men have nothing to add if they are not affirmatively anti-sexist.
-Jut
No, it means that feminist men, like feminist women, need to GET OUT THERE AND CALL PEOPLE OUT ON THEIR SEXISM. I didn't mean that all non-feminist men are assholes, and I didn't mean that men can't contribute anything to feminism.
But feminist men really aren't helping the cause that much sitting around talking to only feminists about their beliefs. It's one thing to tell me, a feminist woman, that you as a man believe that misogynist jokes are bad. It's another to sit with a friend and chuckle a little when he tells a misogynist joke, then come to me later and say "I didn't like that joke." Because in the end, the friend got away with telling a misogynist joke, and the feminist man didn't call him on his sexism. Telling me that you didn't approve of the joke isn't going to change anything. I hold feminist women to the same standard, but the subject was feminist men, so that is why I mentioned feminist men. Also, men are more willing to listen to other men, so it is men's responsibility to get out there and speak out against sexism to those who don't feel sexism is that pervasive.
Just clearing things up, letting people know I don't hate non-feminist men and I do think feminist men can contribute to feminism.
Are you AM from GWS?
Feminist male reporting in.
You pointed out a great hypocrisy, men who claimed to be progressive, "only occasionally" shared in household responsibilities (The Gendered Society, Micheal S. Kimmel).
I think like all feminists there's struggle in negotiating personal politics. Men have to recognize the machine of patriarchy from a position of privilege. It’s a disturbing notion to think that one’s gender designates one as an oppressor and the other, speaking in dualisms, as the oppressed.
I took a look around the White Ribbon site and found several things that were disturbing. First, these statements:
"Are women part of WRC? Do they wear the ribbon?
"In Canada, the WRC is primarily a campaign of men, aimed at boys and young men. But we have women on our board and on our staff. Many local campaigns are encouraged by women’s groups, many are led by men and women together, and women participate in many, if not most, activities.
"In some countries, campuses, and communities, White Ribbon is led exclusively by men. In others, it is a joint effort or even one where women are leading.
"Although the ribbon started as a symbol of men’s opposition to violence against women, in many schools and communities both males and females wear the ribbon. For men, it is a personal pledge, for women a show of support that men and boys have a role and responsibility in ending violence against women."
I couldn't find anything on the site that gave the names of the board members or the ratio of men to women on the board or on staff. It reminded me of a meeting at my office where we were talking about how to put together a website for Spanish speakers. There wasn't one person in the room who spoke Spanish or identified as a Latino or Latina.
Such things lead to the interesting, but misguided logo this group has adopted: the figure of a man embedding in the image of a shoe (walk a mile in her shoes) that turns the shoe into a stiletto. This may unintentionally play to men's erotic attachment to those instruments of torture, high heels. A real feminist on staff or on the board would have seen that immediately and suggested something else.
"What are your relations with women's groups?
"We acknowledge the expertise and central role of women in challenging violence against women. With tremendous heroism, they pioneered this work; they set up support programs for women and pushed for social awareness and legal change. It is essential for our local groups to have an ongoing dialogue with women's groups in their community. Real progress will only be achieved in partnership with women’s organizations."
Men will not truly be feminists if they segregate themselves in male organizations. They amount to a traditional boys/mens club with a psychology that will keep them from getting anywhere meaningful. Men and boys need to have consciousness-raising sessions with women, hear regularly to stories of women face to face, discuss issues with women. In other words, women really need to be integrated into these efforts, not just work side by side whenever it would be most seemly. Men must be willing to be challenged in their own organizations.
From an accountability standpoint, I would suggest that these groups fully open their doors to women, committing to a 50/50 staff/board make-up with male and female cochairs. They should disclose salary equity, benefits that recognize female as well as male concerns for health care and child care, and publish their staff and board lists on their website and all relevant print materials. They should submit to a scorecard process much as proposed legislation is scored by women's groups now. They must show they are helping, not hindering, progress with a results summary each year.
"Men will not truly be feminists if they segregate themselves in male organizations."
I disagree pretty heartily here. I don't think the WRC is a segregated organization, but it is an organization by men for men, and it serves a vital role within feminism. One of the classic feminist issues is that 1) while the group most resistant to feminist issues (and thus, one that needs to learn them the most) is boys, 2) it is naturually inappropriate to prioritize male issues within feminism as a whole. The WRC bridges this gap without diluting women-centric feminism. This is a great thing. It isn't a replacement for women-based domestic violence groups: it simply completes the picture by having men reach out to men.
Most of us agree that men shouldn't be leading mainstream feminism because they limit the roles of women, but they have to take charge of educating young men on masculinity issues. We don't expect feminism as a whole to do that. Inclusion of women in the WRC is important, as is the inclusion of men in broader feminist organizations, but insisting that for accountability's sake, the WRC needs to have 50% female leadership is a bridge to far, akin to requiring that 10% of feministings editors be male.
We already limit the leadership roles of males in feminism to men's issues, but apparently, male leadership in by-men-for-men feminist organizations is too much? This is stretching beyond accountability to a flat out implication that men can't be trusted as feminists.
Dangerfield - Do you even hear the contradiction in that? "By-men-for-men feminist organizations"? Sorry, but men have been very good at teaching men how to be men, not to be feminists. The question of accountability was the subject of this post, and letting the men take care of it for each other is not my idea of accountability. We've been thrown to the dogs too many times and for too long to assume these guys will course-correct.
I also don't think it is at all tangential to address boys' issues within the main body of feminism. Many workers in the field are writing books and articles, lecturing, and doing research on resocializing boys within a feminist context. This is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL if we are to have lasting change. "The WRC needs to have 50% female leadership is a bridge too far, akin to requiring that 10% of feministings editors be male." What's wrong with that? I think we need to see what's on men's minds and help them course-correct, not segregate them. There is ample research that single-sex schooling hurts rather than helps girls. Integration is the way to go.
I suppose the question would be whether that actually advances the purpose of the group. If the purpose of a group like the WRC or Men Against Violence is specifically to get men to take responsibility for preventing violence and rape and get people through the difficult process of understanding their privilege and dealing with it in a way that enables them to be activists, creating a "male space" might be a necessary adjunct of that process, similar to how certain feminist groups might decide that they need to be women-only to allow certain kinds of conversations to happen or group dynamics to evolve.
The question is what best enables course correction. Now it may be that a gender-integrated environment is the best way to go, but the reverse might also be the case.
It might. I suggest informal consciousness-raising groups for that sort of exploration. When you start organizations, the patriarchal structures tend to take over, even in feminist organizations. Leadership becomes more important that inclusion, and leaders get isolated. It happened to NOW, and I venture to say that a men's group would be even more susceptible to backtracking. That is why I think the accountability guidelines I suggest would be advisable.
I like both yours and Steve's comments on moving men's groups forward - I think Steve is right that sometimes men need that "safe-space" aspect too, but your idea of slowly bringing it together with the wider community using informal consciousness-raising groups is definitely a great way for them to consider going. Safe-spaces exist in mainstream feminism too, of all different types, and I don't see why men's groups would have to give that up if it happened.
I can see the positive in what Steve's trying to do, it's tough to try and help the next generation understand that it needs to change. And to Steve - maybe in getting your organisation to embrace the wider community you'll find even more support there. Men teaching young men to believe in feminism is fantastic, but, in the end, what we all want to achieve is for that to not matter anymore.
And therein lies the ultimate problem with this.
You have a group that has pledged itself to doing the right thing according to "feminist doctrine" and yet, by your words, you cannot trust men to do the "right thing."
Forgive my mocking tone Marilyn, but I'm more than a little troubled by this viewpoint. Women can have "women-only" organizations that exclude men because of some dogmatic rationale that vilifies men for even wanting to understand what is going on with "alleged feminists." But now the men who have been fully indoctrinated into your beliefs are not to be trusted to continue their indoctrination further without female supervision?
Next thing we know, there will be white Americans using this argument to get 50% representation in the NAACP.
There are some things that have to come from within a given group. You have a group of men who have embraced feminism and they understand that the only way that the idea can be sold to some other men is if the message comes from men.
Women have no problem demanding their own spaces to talk about men and men's issues; if feminism is about fairness, then what's the harm in men having the same thing?
What is your opinion on same-sex marriage? Does a union between between two men constitute a segregated male organization? Can a gay couple raise feminist children, or do they require the addition of a woman into their family?
That certainly seems to be the logical conclusion of your reasoning. If there is a difference, i want to hear it. I can't say much more without hearing your answer, but all sorts of straight bias bells went off while reading your comment.
Come now. I don't wholly agree with Marilyn_Ferdinand's condemnation of male-only pro-feminist organizations, but surely you don't really need an explanation of the differences between a personal relationship that doesn't involve women and an institution or organization that doesn't involve women.
I think i do. The implication here is that men need frequent interactions with women to become better feminists (agree), but there's a disconnect between the recognition of that necessity and the conclusion: that women must be injected into male social organizations (disagree).
I guess what i'm saying is that if you agree that it's important to include women in social organizations, then it should be even more important to include women in the family. Unless the difference lies solely in nature of the organization and implementation, i.e. that it's possible to regulate the membership of a voluntary group but not a family. In that case, i still don't see why the underlying ideology isn't straight-biased.
I could definitely be overlooking something here--let me know what's missing. It's why i asked!
Frequently, you will hear single mothers say they would like to have a male role model for their sons and a father figure for their daughters. The same goes for same-sex couples, both lesbian and gay. Taking your specific example of a gay couple, I would say they cannot raise a feminist child of either sex unless they have raised their consciousness sufficiently to understand their own bias. Even then, they would need female role models for their children, which I assume could be filled by grandmothers, aunts, friends, and community members. There can be no understanding where there is segregation. I was actually called "it" by a gay man who preferred the exclusive company of men.
I disagree. I think theyve heard women, attended conscious raising sessions, ect but want to try and reconstruct an image of masculinity that isnt based on misogyny. Theyve listened to the women and so they want to make a campaign for them. And no misogynist groups out there can claim that its women really helming it with men just being token heads. No way can you say they dont believe what theyre doing. That makes a more solid impression.
I see the Walk a Mile event had men walking in high heels, so the logo makes more sense. What doesn't make sense is the event. Men in drag, how funny! Let me give you $10 for that. Women walk in those things every day for no money at all.
- Acknowledge fuck-ups, apologize for them, talk (if only to yourself) about how you will attempt to do better in the future, then hold yourself to it.
I waffle back and forth on whether that needs to be a public process, since I think there's a tendency for the mea culpa to become All About Me and not a discussion about the issues at hand, but on the other hand, there is always going to be someone who looks up to you as a Feminist Role Model, and acknowledging that you are not perfect and talking about how you've screwed things up can be helpful.
I also think it's important to think about how those Fuck Ups are not going to go away, but that we can work harder to lessen both their impact and their frequency. As they say 'round my parts, Fail Better Next Time.
Also, most of these fuck ups will be about general "groups" (say, trans women, or women of colour, or women with disabilities), but one will likely have managed to hurt individuals in the process. I think it can be a humbling and important part of accountability to apologize to individuals your actions have hurt.
These things are true both for individual feminists and for feminist groups. It is not enough to sit around with one's feminist circle and say "Gosh, we really have been excluding women with children by not providing child care at our events". One needs to apologize to any parents they know were affected by this oversight, make providing child care a priority, and discuss why this is important to your group as a feminist action, not just to yourselves but to others associated with your group.
Accountability is not just saying "I'm sorry." It's also saying "I'll fix it, and do better next time."
I actually really loved this article. There were some complaints about feminism last night and how some expectation is for men to feel "guilty" about their power status. However, I disagreed and said it's the realization of the disproportionate gender representation and the action to be fair in every way possible. This is very refreshing to read.
Let me come right out and say that this issue - being accountable to women as a feminist male - has been a difficult one for me. Not because I don't think I should, but because - no false modesty - I'm distinctly above average. Fully cognizant of the fact that men have, in fact, been disproportionately empowered throughout history, it was nonetheless difficult for me to "dial back" enough at times when I was involved in efforts that were being led by someone who wasn't as quick on the uptake. The difficulty wasn't even about getting the chance to show off, either, so much as just my neurotic desire to do it *right*. I eventually came to realize, however, that feminism isn't just about a series of goals that need to be met, it's a process, and a key part of that process is women empowering themselves. There's been plenty of times when I've been happy to take my lead from someone else (the hyper-competent and super-pleasant President of my institution's GLBTF group comes to mind - she's got to be one of my favorite people, ever), but at those times I've felt I could probably do a better job in the leadership role than the woman in question, I've come to realize that the cost of better leadership, at least if it was coming from me, would have been, in those cases, *subverting the whole point of the whole thing!* I want to use my talents to help the feminist movement, but always - ALWAYS - in a way that is consonant with the processual aspects of the movement, and not JUST with its material goals.
And believe me, that was a tough lesson to come to.
It has always been my experience that people with true leadership skills carry themselves with both humility and dignity.
I just try my hardest to be conscientious, supportive and respectful, while advocating feminist goals. I find that most of the time, my masculinity doesn't factor in, though I do try to avoid talking too much. But that's true of most of my interactions with people.
This means that in feminist spaces, men should be cognizant of how much they talk, what sort of influence they exert, what kind of leadership they inhabit.
I definitely agree that accountability is important, but I think the quote above is a very misguided approach to it. To me, the whole point of feminism is to get beyond purely gender-based distinctions like that. And I think there's a real risk of that concept of "accountability" quickly descending into kneejerk rejection/resentment of male feminists who stray from the party line, so to speak, which is obviously damaging to feminism in the long run.
A former girlfriend of mine is a social psych professor who did a fair bit of research on this phenomenon in activist/charitable organizations generally. She found that whatever the issue (cancer research, gay rights, AIDS awareness, etc.), there was often an "if you haven't lived through it yourself, you aren't really one of us" dynamic at play, and this dynamic was a significant deterrent to potential members/supporters who cared a great deal about the issue but didn't have personal experience with it.
That said, I do think it's important for all feminists - both male and female - to recognize that their perspective is informed by the context in which they've lived. I just think it's also important to remember that gender is only one part of that context, and no one should be considered any more or less accountable/legitimate/authentic/whatever based solely on their gender.
R. Dave - I respectfully disagree. There are too many internalized messages boys get from a very early age that, while not genetically implanted, might just as well have been. Therefore, gender can be destiny, and is right now, because the conditioning hasn't changed. Men do need to be held more accountable for their actions because they have a readymade place ahead of women. Privilege demands responsibility, just as a pet owner knows her power over her cat or dog and doesn't abuse it. I haven't seen evidence of men so inclined to act in this responsible way for a variety of reasons, from peer pressure to enjoying a good stereotype.
You AREN'T one of us, and being humble about that is the first step to engagement. Research only looks at current and past conditions, not at how those conditions need to be changed to change the dynamic. We've had to acquiesce to patriarchy and bee kept out of the influence of power just because we weren't men. I think our example should be one to men; maybe then they'll understand what it's like for us and "be" one of us - having to fight for our place at the table day in and day out.
First off, I just want to note that if I (as a man) made a comment on a feminist blog that analogized men and women to owners and pets, respectively, I'm pretty sure the response would be epic. *chuckle*
Kidding aside, though, I get what you're saying, but the problem I have with it is twofold:
First, it reduces people to nothing but their gender. It's true that in our society maleness is privileged over femaleness. However, there are all kinds of other power-dynamics at work as well. Whiteness if privileged over blackness; wealth is privileged over poverty; beauty is privileged over unattractiveness (as currently defined); and so on. And then there are all the personal experiences that make up each individual. Does a wealthy, beautiful, white, woman raised in a nurturing family really know more about feeling powerless than a poor, unattractive, black, man raised in an abusive family? Obviously not, so why should gender be the decisive factor? Sure, maybe it should get some extra weight because we're talking about sexism specifically, but to paint with such a broad gender-based brush seems excessive and even directly opposed to what feminism is about.
Second, it's important to keep the ultimate goal/purpose of feminism in mind. The point, as I understand it, isn't to empower women as an end unto itself; the point is to eliminate gender as a factor in how people are treated and how successful they're able to become. If holding feminist men to a more onerous standard than feminist women undermines that goal (as I think it does by driving men, and some women, away from feminism), then I see that as a problem.
Dave - I think you don't understand the depth to which women are subjected to injustice and violence SIMPLY because they are women. Talk about gender reductionism. When you are talking about feminism, you are, by definition, talking about gender. Let's be clear about that. I'm not trying to say men aren't complex beings capable of considering women total equals. As a group, however, y'all have a very poor track record, and now you're saying you want to have an organization to help women that is going to be male dominated. Sorry if I don't trust you. After all, this is just a few days after the Stupak amendment was inserted into an otherwise decent healthcare bill.
This statement really burns me, too: "Second, it's important to keep the ultimate goal/purpose of feminism in mind. The point, as I understand it, isn't to empower women as an end unto itself; the point is to eliminate gender as a factor in how people are treated and how successful they're able to become."
You don't understand "the point." If we can't even keep control of our bodies legally, how do you expect us to embrace this utopian image of a gender-neutral world that you think is being undermined by holding men to a more onerous standard than women. Men have earned this added scrutiny and your hurt feelings about being treated unequally in this matter do not concern me as much as the life-threatening possibilities of losing our reproductive rights.
I never said I wanted a male-dominated organization. I think you're confusing me with someone else upthread. My point was about the concept of accountability - i.e. that I think holding male and female feminists to different standards is counterproductive and contrary to feminist ideals.
As for hurt feelings vs. the Stupak Amendment, umm...ok. I agree that if there was a choice between protecting some male feminists' feelings and preserving women's reproductive rights, I'd go with the latter. Of course, there is no such choice, and in fact, my whole point is that alienating potential allies in the fight for preserving reproductive rights (among other things) is a self-defeating strategy.
R. Dave - I'm sorry, but your statements get lumped in my head with the larger context of this post, which was how men and their organizations can be accountable. I realize you didn't advocate for a male-dominated organization. For me, the tenor of your comments suggests that we should not risk alienating potential allies by emphasizing the problems that their "mere" gender might cause for the feminist cause. Then you share your vision for the true meaning of feminism. What you are shooting for is evolutionary and will see millions of women suffer unnecessarily for many years to come. Maybe we should have given the neocons to come around, too. Sorry, not in my lifetime. There's work to be done.
Marilyn, you say "Privilege demands responsibility." There may be truth to that, but it's a very problematic way to see things. If you say that men's responsibilities with regards to treatment of women stem from their position of privilege, then how will those responsibilities carry over into a better world in which men do not have privilege? If responsibility comes from privileges, how can responsibility be maintained absent privilege? It seems like you're reincarnating some kind of chivalry here. I think we have to believe, instead, or at least as well, that responsibilities are absolute and universal, not derived from positions of authority or privilege.
You've set up a tautology; responsibility does not stem only from privilege. In fact, freedom also demands responsibility or we end up with a ruined economy like the one we've got. Can we have a classless society? Can we have a pure communist society? I don't see it happening for a long time, if ever, so I don't see what's so problematic about my formulation. We're about results here and now, not in some theoretical universe. Much is owed from those who are given much, particularly based on their accident of birth of being male.
How do you expect someone to take a responsibility seriously if you say that the source of that responsibility--their privilege--is illegitimate? You attribute their responsibility to their privilege out of one side of your mouth while you condemn their privilege out of the other. How am I to respect my responsibilities if they are ill-begotten? If you want someone to take a responsibility seriously, I think you will be more successful (and justified) if you appeal to universal principles, such as equality, respect, and mutual recognition. We should not base our moral obligations upon those aspects of society that we think are unjust.
Why shouldn't there be responsibility? Why shouldn't we be expected to own up to (fully) and work against the privileges we've been born with?
Blake - When men do, I will.
This post is about men trying to learn how to be good feminists. So its evident that at least some men "do"--whatever you mean exactly by "do" here. I think the claim you made was an interesting one: "men should base their obligations to women upon their privilege." I just think that's a bad way to try to make change because it binds responsibility to privilege, and gives the whole enterprise a contradictory foundation. If the privilege is bad, how can the responsibility be good?
One very good gender-neutral way to listen starts with "well, with women's nearly 50-year head start on formal, legal, and social analysis what have people said about...?"
---
Another really important question feminist allies need to ask themselves is how are you being accountable to yourselves?
Because, for instance, it's *not* enough just to call out sexism on the grounds that it's harmful to women. That's being accountable to women, in a big way. But sexism already makes room for all kinds of "tip your hat to the ladies" rules. Not being accountable to men when you confront sexism puts them at risk of taking your point as just one more rule of gendered deportment. Which in turn puts them at risk of never considering their own condition as objects of sexist assumptions and gender construction. Which in turn leaves them, and the women around them, at risk of neglecting the rules when they think the social cost to them won't be too high.
I'm trying to control my analogy habit but compare my point to how physical therapists say strengthening flabby stomach muscles is one of the keys for dealing with back problems. Same with gender issues.
Going back to my first point, the important thing for men to remember -- whether we think of ourselves as feminists or only "allies" -- is that feminists have at least half a century of experience. And while I think it's still kind of gender-constructing for men to ask how they can be accountable to women there's no question about the benefits of listening to and learning from feminism.
figleaf
This is a great point. Male allies and feminists need to be able to act as an ally/feminist even when females are not present. The social control of women is useful, especially early on, but ultimately men can't rely on their fear of punishment or shame to act in a decent manner.
I think it depends on the circumstance though there are certain basic tenets that need to be taught. To be honest, much of what Feminism espouses seemed like common sense and unselfishness when I came across it the first time. Sometimes we squabble over the little details, but the big broad concepts are available to all. Those who get the big picture ought not to be as much of a concern as though who do not.
Am I the only one who thinks of this as analogous to white people confronting their racial privilege? Speaking just for myself, I had pretty much no close relationships with people of other races when I was growing up. I had a historical knowledge of racism, and I honestly thought that was enough. I was never really confronted about my white privilege until college, because before then there just wasn't anyone around to do it.
I understand that some men are more comfortable in groups of other men only, but I would have a hard time raising my consciousness or otherwise confronting my privilege without interacting with actual people of color, humbling myself and listening to what they had to say. So, men-only feminist organizations... I don't see it.
I agree that being a good feminist requires listening to women, but I've never seen a male-feminist group fail to do this. I think some of the suspicion about male feminist organizations in this thread is coming from a misconception about these male feminist organizations and how they operate.
First misconception: they are not segregated. Rather, they usually have a specific, male-centric goal that sets them apart from general feminist groups. Generally, these are relatively narrow goals, along the lines of men taking responsibility for combating domestic violence. These groups raise money, hold vigils, and most importantly, educate the community. One of the duties of the male feminist is to bring feminism into gendered spaces that women cannot, and these organizations do this and do it effectively. This often involves talking to at-risk groups of young men otherwise only exposed to violent and aggressive hypermasculine ideals and providing them with non-violent positive male role models, etc.
This is a key part of the equation: men working toward feminist goals in a way where they can be most useful without taking the place of women or taking the focus of feminism away from women.
These organizations do not operate absent intereractions with women. They are not "what about the menz" organizations: they are premised on combatting violence against women by reforming the male experience. I have never met a member of one of these organizations that did not participate in the broader feminist dialogue and work toward feminist causes in other ways. They listen to women and take the cause to heart. Rather, for many men, male feminist organizations are simply the most effective way for them to practice feminism.
These organizations also prioritize things in ways that feminist organizations don't. Feminism is (rightfully) generally focussed on empowering women and reaching out to women. Iniatives focused on reforming masculinity are naturally not a primary part of the agenda (case in point: feministing community has a subcategory of posts for "girls" but none for "boys").
This isn't wrong, since one of the goals of feminism is to correct for society's over-emphasis on the masculine experience, but it leaves a gap: reforming masculinity is a natural prerequisite to eliminating violence against women and to improving the treatment of women worldwide. Male feminist organizations are uniquely suited to do this. Its an integral part of feminism.
Okay, fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
Looks like people still don't like uppity women, even on a feminist site. I'm clearly not as popular as the men commenting here.
I know, right? This dialogue has been an utter bust.
I did go ahead and use the Report Abuse button on every one of the posters who called you uppity though, so hopefully that will help.
I'm going to say this and be more than ready to accept whatever comes after.
There is an inherent problem with the idea of "feminist men being accountable to women." Perhaps I'm missing something in that concept, but it seems like it's leading to ideas where someday, if not already, there's going to be a male feminist who will be told by a woman:
"You're a credit to your gender. Keep up the good work."
The problem is that you cannot fight discriminatory thinking with discriminatory thinking. There is this overwhelming idea in "alleged feminist" thinking that for a man to be genuinely interested in gender equality that he has to admit complicity in the patriarchal structure and beg the women of the world for forgiveness in a whelm of self-abasement and loathing for one's gender. These are the only men whose viewpoints are accepted in many of these spaces.
In the mid 20th Century, there was a similar movement that urged African Americans to express similar self-loathing, admitting to alleged deficiencies, and indulge in other forms of philosophical self-flagellation for being born Black (i.e. Uncle Ruckus).
Let's substitute that with another form of thinly-veiled discrimination:
"You're good...for a woman."
This is part and parcel the very thing that "alleged feminists" have been fighting against. Equality cannot exist in the realm of "licensed contradictions" and "legal discrimination." Equality is an absolute; the minute you begin to rationalize the denial of equality for any reason in your efforts toward that goal, then you are no better than the people who previously oppressed you.
Isn't it enough that you have men willing to just work to move forward and away from the problems in our historical past regarding gender issues?
Apparently it isn't, according to some "alleged feminists."
(By the way, I use the phrase "alleged feminists" because whenever I have pointed out blatant discriminatory concepts that are existing in what is being touted as mainstream feminism, I'm told that "those ideas do not represent the movement as a whole." However, the thinkers and philosophers who push those ideas are still celebrated overall as leading thinkers by your movement.)
If you read my remarks from this blog you'll see that I'm not unsympathetic towards what men's groups can do for feminism. However I did find fault with a couple of the things you said:
"There is an inherent problem with the idea of "feminist men being accountable to women." Perhaps I'm missing something in that concept" - yes, you are missing something, something very important. It's that feminism is about gaining equal rights for WOMEN. To borrow your analogy about African Americans - if I were to work towards gaining equal employment rights and stop discrimination towards the African American community, however much I do for it, I would still always have to defer to African Americans for what to do, what to work towards and what they consider to be the most important thing. Because I'm not African American, so in the end, I can't be the one to make that judgment. It's a similar thing for men in the feminist movement - of course most women would welcome the help, we need it, and after all these years of sexism and mistreatment we deserve it, but you can't make the decisions as to what the aims are, nor can you tell a woman "you are merely an "alleged" feminist" - it's not your call.
I also had a problem with this statement: "In the mid 20th Century, there was a similar movement that urged African Americans to express similar self-loathing, admitting to alleged deficiencies, and indulge in other forms of philosophical self-flagellation for being born Black (i.e. Uncle Ruckus)." The problem with you using this as an analogy to compare the treatment of men within the feminist community is that in the mid-20th Century African Americans had even less power than they have now (which is not enough). Therefore them being forced into self-loathing by those in power has different connotations than you joining feminism from a position of power. The feminist community is one of the most reviled groups going today, even amongst other women, but more especially by men. So to have them be wary of what you're offering is kind of understandable - we've had around 5000 years of inequality, there's gonna be a lot of apologising to be done before everyone is ready to move on! I don't believe you should totally abase yourself over it, but admitting it happened, that you reaped the benefits, and then saying "how can I help change it?" seems a better way of approaching it than shouting at women who disagree with you and calling them names. All that's going to do is give the impression that you actually are what you say you're fighting against - a fully paid up member of the patriarchy!
"Isn't it enough that you have men willing to just work to move forward and away from the problems in our historical past regarding gender issues?" Well, historically we've moved on from slavery but I still expect to be apologising and making reparations for it for a while. The Cold War ended years ago but I don't expect people are just going to quickly get over it and get along. And gender inequality has been around longer than either of those things were. As I said, I don't believe you need to beat yourself up over it but you do need to realise that it's going to be a long time before the pain goes away, especially for those who've lived through the start of the rights movement, and then had to suffer the backlash that's happened recently.
WOW, there is such a gap between the men and women on this thread it's almost insurmountable! I say almost - I still have some hope, there seemed to be some good comments and some people were listening and learning. And the debate has remained respectful, which is a major plus!
I'm not as angry about the comments as other people seem to be, and maybe that's because I was brought up in a very strong feminist household (even my grandmother was, before they'd even come up with the word!) which believed that the point of feminism, above all, was equality. It's not about apologies, it's not about being better, it's not about exclusion, and I was never brought up with the idea that a man simply couldn't be a feminist. If someone believes there is a major gender gap that penalises women and that it should be fixed, in my mind that makes that person a feminist, whomever or whatever they happen to be!
I think men's groups can be either good or bad - you have to judge it on what that group is doing. If it's preaching segregation, then it's bad. If it's teaching the next generation of men to be better people and to strive to close the gender gap, then it's good. Until you know what the point of the group is and what they're doing you can't make that judgement. And I get the impression the groups the men are referring to here fall into the latter category. And I think it's admirable that men are now taking it upon themselves to do this - lots of young men will simply listen to a man more than they will listen to me, it's one of the major issues of living in a society that is sexist (which at the moment ours is), but it's not going to be solved by me getting annoyed with people who won't listen to or take me seriously. Harsh, but true! Is everyone willing to just sit around and have equality take 10 times as long to achieve because it's not PRECISELY what you imagined it would be?
I think feminist men should be (and mostly are) aware of their privilege, and really that's all I ask - if you're aware of your own privilege then it naturally follows that you will then be more careful, watch what you say, and be more aware of other people's feelings. As for forming groups to forward the cause, all I can say is more power to you - however you decide to bring feminism to the forefront someone will always disagree with you, whether you're a man or a woman (the one time sexism doesn't seem to come into it!), but if the only other option is doing nothing, then what's the point of feminism in the first place?
I deeply, deeply resent being called an alleged feminist after 35 years of taking it on the chin for women and seeing Roe v. Wade at the brink of dissolution. Is this what our male allies are helping us fight? Is being aware of one's privilege really good enough? I don't think so, not after more than a century of a women's movement in the United states, not when women are STILL dying over reproductive choice, rape, dometic violence, when women are still making 77 cents on the dollar of a man and still make up a tiny fraction of lawmakers and corporate executives.
I know a lot of the women on this site want to nice to the men who care about equity, but what I'm reading from these men is a world where someday men and women will be free to be you and me. This is a big, big problem I have with them and with feminism of the past 20 years that sat back and stopped fighting. I'm an old campaigner. Where are the young warriors who need to get out of their seats and start picketing and working for their women's rights candidates? If feminists worked as hard as the Obamaniacs did to elect the nation's first black president, abortion would be a sacrament by now. But you didn't, and now when I'm really weary and ready to step back for the next generation, I've got to take to the streets ALL OVER AGAIN. How many of you feminist men are going to take to the streets, and really act up?