I haven't recently checked this with the Feminist Commissariat, so maybe I'm not a Real Feminist and a disgrace to the movement, but I tend to call feminists feminists, and people of either gender who deploy the rhetoric of gender equality while refusing to admit their privilege not feminists.

I realise this is a terribly subtle and convoluted distinction to ask people who are so under-educated all they can do in life is write for the New Statesman to make, but there you have it - judging people on their merits and not generalising by gender is a cross we feminists just have to bear.

Out of sincere curiosity Ellie, what do you agree with him about? The article ends on a question mark and makes no well-defined point I can make out...

"The distinction is that in order to be a member of a movement for freedom and rights -- and at its heart this is what feminism is - one has to understand what it is like to not have those rights themselves."

you seem to have misplaced the supporting argument for this bit.

as far as i know only the labour party has all-women shortlists, which are imposed by deputy leader and notable woman harriet harman. men clearly enjoy structural advantages in becoming MPs, that's why they're overrepresented. all-women shortlists are an attempt to address that. you may as well say that laws against pay discrimination in the workplace are patronising and anti-feminist since women should be able to negotiate a fair salary on their own.

I remember when David Mitchell wrote in the Observer a piece criticising pole dancing classes. He didn't get anything like the ire and bile directed at him when a woman writer says the same opinions.

Because we live in a patriarchy, and whether we like it or not (and as a feminist i'm firmly in the 'not' camp) a man's opinion seems to still carry more weight.

It's patriarchy!

BUT that doesn't mean men shouldn't write about these issues or can't call themselves feminists. Because we need all voices raised to protest the oppression of women and gender inequality. Otherwise how will change happen?

However, men who are feminists do need to be careful that they don't come across like knights on shining armour, saving feminism from obscurity and ensuring it is taken seriously. How? By listening to women and allowing us a voice.

I agree with MarinaS. Men can be feminists, and they are capable of being empathetic/observant enough to know when they won't experience a situation in the same way as a woman would.

The problem I have with male feminists (or as I like to call them, 'feminists') speaking about an issue that solely or mainly affects women isn't that they're speaking out about it, it's about the fact that they're believed when women who experience it aren't (see huge response about online sexism).

Also, the door-holding-open-implied-as-patriarchal has been used as a negative feminist trope since way before I was born, and it's rubbish. There are a million more useful real examples that could be used here. For example, the implication that all women must be good parents because women are so *nurturing* is something that is seen as a compliment (usually by men) but actually harms gender equality in the long term.

I'm also with whatevs with regard to all-female shortlists. They're there to try create equal access to the playing field, not to coddle 'teh wimminz'.

Class thing. The poor have thier arguments made for them by the middle class, and their politics co-opted without ever being invited to contribute. Feminism exists within that class system, and is as prone to the same snobberies as any other. There is no feminism, there is a middle class feminism, a middle class socialism, a middle class sphere of political discussion that we are not invited.

My sister, not yours.

"Someone needs to come up with a definition of feminism that everyone agrees on."

Good luck with that!

"Isn't 'equal rights and treatment between the genders' fair enough?"

That's egalitarianism. Which will do for me.

Nat

The other day I was having a pint and a chat with a few friends of mixed gender. The men in that group would definitely describe themselves as feminists.

We women were complaining about street harrassment, and the response from the men was astonishing: they just couldn't believe that it was something we had to suffer daily. Not because they were thoughtless or unfeminist, but because it just simply doesn't form part of their experience. It wasn't something they'd had to think about.

Someone once said to me, 'being a male feminist is like having a great cook book but never being able to taste the food.' Appreciating the difference between having an academic understanding of something and knowing it as a lived experience is basic sociology, I would have thought. I'm amazed at the amount of people who seem to view those two things as having some sort of equivalency.

Re the opening the door thing, I do think some men do it because of some chivalrous compulsion and not common courtesy. I've certainly had men do it to me, whilst dropping in the epithet 'young lady.'

All women shortlists: there is an interesting discussion to be had, I think, about emancipation here. In very general terms, is it still emancipation if it is granted by the oppressor? There's that quote isn't there 'women's chains were formed by men, not evolution.' Besides, Nicky just moots that point, he doesn't come to a conclusion - I think he's just exploring the issues there.

To me, the nub of this piece is that men should appreciate that they are coming from a position of privilege when discussing gender issues, and not think that their recognition of patriarchy is the same as living it. And that's something I wholeheartedly agree with.

@Ellie May: the thrust of your argument assumes that all men are in a position of privilege and power over women, but that is a gross over-generalisation.

Really interesting comments. Ellie, i have the same disbelief from men when i talk about street harassment, or the 'oh it's just idiots' - no it's not, it's men, men who have a sense of entitlement over women's bodies.

i agree with Nat - the problem i have with some men who identify as feminists is exactly that street harassment thing - not listening, not understanding and not validating women's experience of something that effects and harms women daily.

It's like with any privileged group, we need to listen and hear each other's truths. If men choose to speak over women, refuse to listen or thing they're 'doing feminism better' then i would doubt their claim to feminism. And i know a few guys who do that!

But i believe men can be and should be feminists - because i believe everyone can be and should be feminists. But we don't get to equality by silencing women.

I'm with Morus here. Yes to equal rights, down with sexism, but I am not a feminist and would go further and argue against it as a doctrine.

"Feminism is about equality among all humans."

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The sad fact is that too much feminist thought and critique starts from a binary - if not Manichean - position that characterises 'male' attributes (competition, conflict, aggression etc) against anti-cognate 'female' ones. The inherent problem here is that if conflict(male)=bad and non-conflict(female)=good then you *can't* think that the two should be equal, by definition.

So, as far as I'm concerned, three cheers for equal rights, no cheers for feminism.

Sam Gisoad

As a feminist I spend a vast amount of time battling the stereotypes of women as passive & nurturing and men as aggressive & competitive. Even just in this thread, that false dychotomy has been brought up by Nat in a comment above.

So I'd invite you to examine whether the binary you object to really does exist in academic feminism (which is often accused of erring in the opposite direction of claiming men and women are "exactly the same"), or whether it's a caricature that strikes a chord with you for some reason.

Alternatively it'd be great to see the sources on which you base that description of the feminist approach to gender.

Good article! Thanks :)

@ Morus

Quite Rumfeldesque but I think I got there :-)

Feminism seems to be a lot of different things to a lot of different feminists.

Why are we ignoring women when talking about failminism here? How many women do we all know who are name changing, cupcake baking, stay at home mumming, woman trashing, Tory loving, doily knitting, abortion objecting un-sisterly "feminists"?

Not that any of those things individually make it impossible for anyone to be a "true" (for Nat's definition of "true") feminist. I'm just making the point that breaking the discussion about who *is* and *isn't* a true feminist down by gender is spectacularly unhelpful. And not even particularly interesting.

Which is exactly my whole problem with the OP.

MarinaS

"So I'd invite you to examine whether the binary you object to really does exist in academic feminism (which is often accused of erring in the opposite direction of claiming men and women are "exactly the same"), or whether it's a caricature that strikes a chord with you for some reason. "

Fair enough - declaration of interest; the majority of my interaction with feminist thought has been through linguistics (Irigaray in particular but also wider theories of phallogocetnrism &c) where binary opposition (especially in the form X vs ¬X rather than X vs Y) tends to crop up. Perhaps I've mapped this unfairly onto recent sociological feminism, given that I haven't engaged with the latter much and it's a fair few years since I read the former.

But then I also get to read things like this wonderful extract from Bidisha the other day (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2...). Which - and I'm more than happy to be told that she's not representative - does rather seem to confirm my worst prejudices...

@Morus; nice taxonomy ;)

NichiHodgson - YES! THAT!

Ellie - I think we actually agree, it's just that I am very wary of this whole 'men can't be feminists' debate because I've seen it as an excuse for anti-feminism by people who seem to think that feminism = misandry and this is evidence. When it's explained the way you did, it's obviously more nuanced and reasoned than that, but you know what people are like.

In an ideal world, this would happen:

1) We accept some groups of people have inherent privilege over others, and some may have relative privilege (i.e. Group A are more privileged than Group B, who are more privileged than Group C).
2) Members of the privileged groups should strive to understand the experiences of the marginalised groups while understanding that a) they may never fully understand it and b) they should defer to people who have lived experience of the oppressive systems.
3) Everyone who is cool and awesome works together to smash all systems of oppression.
4) All the cool people get cookies (vegan, fairtrade, carbon neutral cookies that we all baked together). Non-awesome people get no cookies, and thus learn the error of their ways.

Unfortunately, this is not the real world, so we have to have this debate periodically. My basic rule with people is: 'if they were called up on their out of order behaviour, did they apologise and strive to be more mindful in future or dig their heels in and defend their right to act in an offensive/oppressive manner?', and it's how I treat men who identify as feminist but sometimes do git-like things.

Ellie - as Nat says I think we fundamentally agree (which is always nice!). Esp in your last point - hence why i say we need to listen to one another and men need to listen to women's voices and experiences and not invalidate and talk over us.

@ Shreena
'Feminism is not about women's rights. Feminism thinks that matriarchy is as bad as patriarchy.
Feminism is about equality among all humans'

That's the definition you're talking about right? And I couldn't agree more. Evidently some people don't though. That's a shame in my opinion.

@Sarah
Ok that's your definition. And seems to come from an antagonistic pov, in that it assumes that all 'males' are oppressors and all females victims. Some men are horrendous excuses for human beings. No question. But to my mind inclusion rather than exclusion should be the way forward in advancing equality. That means men and women on the same side. All this 'mansplaining' and 'manarchy' and denigrating men at every opportunity isn't going to be all that helpful. The middle ground is what moves things forwards - not the extremes.

Sam

I'm not about to disown Bidisha, because she's awesome; but she is a polemicist and artist, and I thought we were talking about feminist academics?

It was only a few weeks ago that a study was published to great fanfare, "debunking" the previous work that has more or less established that psychological traits are evenly distributed across genders. The study was done by two male psychologists with an explicit agenda of refuting the work of Dr. Janet Shibley Hyde in the field.

Divide and conquer - wonder who said that recently. If a man cannot express support for feminism without being viewed as a Fifth Columnist then the gender divide is very deep indeed.

Are there no female Conservative Party members?
The same goes for any party or grouping And do we believe that Conservative Party females are the genuine article just because they can call themselves sisters, wives, partners and / or mothers.
Many women, mainly to the right of centre, are just as actively against the principles of feminism as are men of the right. And express this view openly!
And in any case, gender is not all outward appearances.
Certain male Tory ministers voted against 'gay rights' whilst practicing otherwise.
Sorry to break off - have to do the washing-up

House-Trained

Part of the problem with answering this question is the fact that women can’t seem to agree among themselves what constitutes true Feminism. Apparently, “fun” Feminists (whatever the hell they are) think pornography is acceptable while many serious Feminists (??) vehemently disagree. As a man, I feel there is no way for me to demonstrate my support for feminism that won’t anger at least some women.

I’m not saying there needs to be a definitive set of qualifying parameters to feminism, but that there isn’t makes the whole issue a rather loaded one for men.

I have decided that the only honest route open to me as a man sympathetic to the feminist cause is to try to stake a claim to that sympathy without being patronising (as, apparently, Nick Cohen was) while admitting that I am as capable of sexism, however unwittingly, as any human and that I promise to do better.

I do know this for certain: I love the women in my life dearly and, despite my failures as a son/husband/brother/father/friend, I want them to be treated with respect and to have all the same opportunities as their male counterparts. I cannot comprehend why other men would want any less for the women in their lives. Does that make me a feminist or simply someone who thinks we should all do right by each other?

@ ChirOn
Same boat mate!

@Des Demona. Thank Christ. I thought I was alone in this leaky vessel. Glad to know that when it goes down, you'll be with me.