Men, Allies and Privilege: Why I'm not a Feminist
[I wrote a version of this to give as a talk/workshop discussion topic at the Edinburgh University Feminist Society Dayschool, it had mixed responses, generally divided along liberal/radical lines. Debate (such as it was) centred on the issue of whether feminism should be accessible to men or not, and if men could and should be part of feminist groups]
Note on language and the use of "non-men" as a category: It was picked up on that in my talk I refer to an opposition dynamic in the patriarchy not between "men" and "women" but between "men" and "non-men". In setting this (somewhat false) dichotomy up, I do not wish to suggest that the category of "women" is blurred and un-definable, or that that of "men" is clear and distinct. There are more than two genders, and more than two sexes, but patriarchy oppresses all that it does not class to be "men" by its own definition. There are many issues here about masculinity and sexuality in men, but this was not the subject of this presentation. In order to understand, acknowledge and fight privilege and oppression, we must examine the false dichotomy that patriarchy uses to privilege some of us, and in an effort to acknowledge the difficulties non-cisgendered comrades go through everyday, I label the gender and sex identities as "men" (the privileged class) and "non-men" (the oppressed class). Obviously the labels we ascribe to genders would be, in an ideal world, completely arbitrary. This can be achieved by acknowledging and tackling privilege.
Men and privilege in the feminist movement
Feminism, historically, is about the female perspective. More recently, that has been extended to include other non-men. Having, or understanding a non-male lived experience is central to any meaningful feminist discourse and action, with a view to feminism's other goal, that is, the liberation for groups oppressed by our patriarchal society. Some men have, since feminism's inception, been interested in both of those aims, and many would like to see them realised. We cannot create any form of decent society without the input of men, women and everyone else, and to look forward into an equal society surely fills one with optimism and great hope for the future. But we don't live in that time now. Non-men are sidelined in all walks of life, sometimes in small ways, in objectifying popular culture and media, sometimes in huge and horrendous ways, in the institutionalised blaming of victims for rape and sexual assault.
Surely in a world such as this, in which women, for example, are ignored, laughed at and chastised for giving their opinion, it is feminist groups and meetings that can provide that breathing space, so that women can feel free to express themselves as women. It would be great if we could create spaces like that with all genders there, but the fact is that having men in a feminist group changes the character and feel of the room. Would women who have survived rape, domestic abuse and other manifestations of patriarchy feel able and confident to talk about their experiences in the presence of men? And if they don't, if feminism has to choose between having men in the room with them and making a comfortable space for abuse survivors to express themselves and feel a solidarity with their comrades, then I'd like to think that it's a no-brainer. Everywhere in society I, a white man, get an easy time of it, and I should be prepared to take a step out of the room if it would make the one space there is for non-men more comfortable for expression in the absence of patriarchy and men.
Feminism needs to address the question of male involvement, in order to make sure that the movement can serve non-men who are nervous about a male presence, as well as making clear to inexperienced men interested in helping to end patriarchy what their position is as a male ally, and what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behaviour. It's hard to know when all of our male privilege is so ingrained. Sometimes I need to be told to shut the hell up.
Personally, I do not identify as a feminist, and furthermore I do not believe men can or should identify as feminists. I listen to the non-male perspective on life as much as I can, and I certainly believe in the liberation of those oppressed by patriarchy, just as I believe in liberation for those oppressed by capitalism, and neo-colonialism, and racism. Fundamental to this belief, however, is that if patriarchy is to be smashed it should be a non-man swinging the hammer. While I listen to the non-male perspective, I do not have a non-male perspective. I can never experience patriarchy in the ways my non-male comrades do. I never have to fear for myself crossing the Meadows at three in the morning. I never have to feel judged or degraded at work simply because of my gender. Although I sympathise, and, crucially, attempt to empathise with comrades struggling with the additional oppression of patriarchy (you know, on top of all the others), I can never truly have that experience. Because of my personal experience as a white English-sounding middle-class man, I feel that to identify as a feminist would devalue feminism as a dialectic of liberation and a celebration of the non-male viewpoint. I am not ashamed of who I am: I can scarcely change it, and nobody in a decent activist circle plays the "who's more oppressed" game any more, but it is important for me to acknowledge and deal with my own privilege in society.
As a man, I need to come to the realisation, and it's a really simple one, that feminism is not for me. It is not about me. Everything else in patriarchal white-dominated English-speaking society is about me more than it is my non-male, non-white and non-Anglophone comrades. This is about non-men. I can get involved in feminism, if I am invited by them to do so, but it is as an ally, a secondary, a listener who for once waits to ask a non-man if it is okay to get involved, as they have to do all the time. Feminist groups should be the one place where everything is not designed to fit me at the expense of non-men. This is where I worry when I hear feminists talking about how they can appeal to men. Everything is designed to appeal to the male gaze. For god's sake don't make feminism one of them.
What role do I think men can have in the feminist movement? I think, chiefly, men's role is to listen. Men have a responsibility to understand that if we are interested in joining feminism we do so as members of a privileged class, unaware of the precise dimensions of our hegemony. We must take a back seat, and we might just learn something by doing so. Lao Tzu wrote in the Dao de Jing that "those who speak don't know; those who know don't speak". I think that this phrase can be applied to identify men in feminist groups who do actually understand what it means to acknowledge privilege, even if we may never understand all aspects of it. Sometimes, acknowledging privilege means shutting up, even if your point seems like the coolest thing ever right just then, it can wait until a few non-men have had their say first.
Men's other important role is to talk to our fellow men about feminism, and about gendered oppression and patriarchy. The White Ribbon campaign works well to encourage men to get involved in stopping patriarchal oppression, as is the Men Can Stop Rape campaign. As men, we can use our privileged position to broach the subject with our friends, and often I have found that if it is brought up, men often talk about how they resent the roles patriarchy enforces on men and women. Patriarchy harms non-men more, but it does harm men too. Fathers4Justice, for example, would do well to realise that inequality in child custody is less about feminists controlling men, and more about patriarchal definitions of gender that have the mother as the default caregiver, when that may not be the most appropriate solution.
It would be great if men talked about smashing patriarchy all the time, but in reality a lot of conversations would be a victory for women's liberation if we simply called up our more laddish friends on their all-too-prevalent rape jokes, or on making insulting and objectifying comments about women. Men's groups, formal or informal, may have a role here, promoting a positive masculinity that separates itself from domination and abusiveness, just as feminism has worked well to dissociate femininity from submissiveness and being dominated.
I think my own personal biggest realisation about feminism is that it is not just "something else to learn", it is not an academic or intellectual standpoint, and it is not, as appealing as this is to me, an intellectual structure into which everything either fits or doesn't fit. Feminism is an experience, a dialogue of liberation in which the voices, for once, are the non-men who have suffered under male rule. Men can take part in this experience and this dialogue, but that role is necessarily a secondary one. We don't have the voices that need liberating: women and other non-men do. Men should not feature prominently in feminist groups, not because we don't have anything of value to say, but because all of patriarchal society exists to give us a space to say what it is we have to say, even on feminism and gender. I certainly think a man holding any sort of position of leadership or power in a feminist group is at best ridiculous and a PR disaster and at its worst is off-putting and a contradiction of the very aims of feminism. It is most certainly not the role of feminism to pander to the needs of possibly-sympathetic men, at the expense of non-male comrades who may need the support that sometimes only feminist groups can provide.
Men do need to be involved, otherwise gender, just as it has in an academic context, becomes a "women's issue" or a "women's subject". Men's involvement, however, needs to be on the terms of women and non-men. Men can act to support and make space for feminism and non-male viewpoints in their lives outside of the group, in their own political contexts and among their friends. It may seem that I am overly cautious or hesitant about men's involvement. To be honest I see nothing wrong with a feminist group that would want to allow men there on an invitation-only basis. A simple "and men are welcome too" on the posters would suffice. If that would make feminism accessible to the comrades that really need it, those non-men who would feel uncomfortable talking about their experiences in the presence of men, then I consider my absence well worth it. It is not feminism that keeps me out, it is privilege. If I want to take part more fully, the best solution is to dismantle the patriarchal system that traps me in this gilded cage, so I, along with the rest of humanity, can finally be truly free.
[PS - I'd like to thank everyone attending the Glasgow University Feminists' discussion on men and the movement for giving me many of these ideas, in particular Beti and Sophie, who have taught me most of this at one time or another.]