The Male Feminist
There are objections that a man who calls himself a feminist will encounter from other men. I haven't personally encountered any of these yet, but I have a familiarity with the general arguments. The long and short of it is that men will tend to emasculate a man who is a self-described advocate for women's equality.
Would I feel less self-worth if another man tried to emasculate me for calling myself a feminist? Hardly. It simply means that I refuse to allow some other man's definition of what it means to be a man override my own. My operating definition of my own character is based on who I personally choose to be and on my own core values. Embracing this and refusing to yield to pressure from others that would alter this definition is the first principle of being a man. (Or simply of being a good person.)
One argument is that a man would only choose to do this if he's done something wrong to a woman, feels guilty, and is adopting the feminist moniker in order to atone for such a thing. I've certainly done things to women over the years that I regret. Each of these choices I've made carries its own bit of remorse that I've had to deal with, compartmentalized to the specific circumstance. I have to deal with this guilt like all people. I cannot simply call myself a "feminist" as if this were some kind of shortcut for atoning for any specific mistakes I've made.
More importantly, I've also done things that I regret that have had adversely impacted other men, and also myself. These mistakes are more numerous in number, simply because I associate with other men and with myself more than I do other women, on the average. These mistakes haven't led me to become a men's rights advocate, or an advocate for myself. (The latter is, I suppose, what a politician is.)
There's also the implication that you can be a man and call yourself a feminist in order to curry favor with women. Call yourself a feminist and the ladies will swoon! Instant poontang, just add social activism! Am I summarizing this argument correctly? That adopting the label of "feminist" is some kind of Faustian bargain in which you exchange your masculinity for quick and easy sex?
To any man who would make this insinuation or accusation, I have a simple question: do you really think so little of women and their intelligence that you believe they would be so easily duped by such blatantly obvious shenanigans? If it were really that easy, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a sudden massive insurgence of men into the women's rights movement. Men aren't dumb either, and they would quickly follow the path from A to B if it really were a straight line.
Truth be told, I do have an ulterior motive for educating myself about feminist rhetoric. I do aspire to one day be in a healthy committed relationship with a woman. While learning about women's struggles in modern civilization isn't going to magically give me that, it will help me develop a much better sense of what an individual woman's experience might be. It helps me step outside myself and see the world at large, governed by a set of forces larger than I am. It helps me ask better, more informed questions of every woman I meet in order to develop a more concrete understanding of who they are. And it helps me appreciate there are limits to the understanding I'm capable of achieving about any other human being.
This goes beyond women. Here's the more general summary: our society is characterized by structural inequality, in the social, political, and economic spheres. I've spent most of my life turning a blind eye to these forces; this has atrophied the empathic muscles I have in my brain, not just for the plights of those who find themselves on the wrong side of these imbalances, but for all other human beings. The study of the mechanics of oppression, and more importantly, listening to the stories of those who are oppressed, is the best way to exercise these empathic muscles.
Would I feel less self-worth if another man tried to emasculate me for calling myself a feminist? Hardly. It simply means that I refuse to allow some other man's definition of what it means to be a man override my own. My operating definition of my own character is based on who I personally choose to be and on my own core values. Embracing this and refusing to yield to pressure from others that would alter this definition is the first principle of being a man. (Or simply of being a good person.)
One argument is that a man would only choose to do this if he's done something wrong to a woman, feels guilty, and is adopting the feminist moniker in order to atone for such a thing. I've certainly done things to women over the years that I regret. Each of these choices I've made carries its own bit of remorse that I've had to deal with, compartmentalized to the specific circumstance. I have to deal with this guilt like all people. I cannot simply call myself a "feminist" as if this were some kind of shortcut for atoning for any specific mistakes I've made.
More importantly, I've also done things that I regret that have had adversely impacted other men, and also myself. These mistakes are more numerous in number, simply because I associate with other men and with myself more than I do other women, on the average. These mistakes haven't led me to become a men's rights advocate, or an advocate for myself. (The latter is, I suppose, what a politician is.)
There's also the implication that you can be a man and call yourself a feminist in order to curry favor with women. Call yourself a feminist and the ladies will swoon! Instant poontang, just add social activism! Am I summarizing this argument correctly? That adopting the label of "feminist" is some kind of Faustian bargain in which you exchange your masculinity for quick and easy sex?
To any man who would make this insinuation or accusation, I have a simple question: do you really think so little of women and their intelligence that you believe they would be so easily duped by such blatantly obvious shenanigans? If it were really that easy, I'd be willing to bet there'd be a sudden massive insurgence of men into the women's rights movement. Men aren't dumb either, and they would quickly follow the path from A to B if it really were a straight line.
Truth be told, I do have an ulterior motive for educating myself about feminist rhetoric. I do aspire to one day be in a healthy committed relationship with a woman. While learning about women's struggles in modern civilization isn't going to magically give me that, it will help me develop a much better sense of what an individual woman's experience might be. It helps me step outside myself and see the world at large, governed by a set of forces larger than I am. It helps me ask better, more informed questions of every woman I meet in order to develop a more concrete understanding of who they are. And it helps me appreciate there are limits to the understanding I'm capable of achieving about any other human being.
This goes beyond women. Here's the more general summary: our society is characterized by structural inequality, in the social, political, and economic spheres. I've spent most of my life turning a blind eye to these forces; this has atrophied the empathic muscles I have in my brain, not just for the plights of those who find themselves on the wrong side of these imbalances, but for all other human beings. The study of the mechanics of oppression, and more importantly, listening to the stories of those who are oppressed, is the best way to exercise these empathic muscles.