Emily
MikeI made a major mid-career change in 1997, when I decided to end my career in the computer field and go to law school to become a civil rights attorney. I absolutely loved law school. I loved the discussions in class and the interaction with other law students. Frequently, as I hope it is for all law students, I would have discussions/debates after class about various issues. My discussions with one young woman would frequently result in agreement, including discussions about gender issues. However, during one of our discussions, I either must have identified myself as a feminist for the first time or must have asked her for her opinion on whether a man could be a feminist. I was shocked (and very hurt then and still today) when she said unequivocally that a man could not be a feminist. I believed strongly then that she was wrong and still believe that today. (I will write more on the reasons why in a future blog.)
Emily, my collaborator on this blog, obviously believes that a man can be a feminist or we wouldn’t be doing this blog together. However, Emily also believes that a man should never have a high-level position at any feminist organization. I agree.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor touched on the reasons why this is probably true in a speech she gave to the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York in 1999:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological differences . . . our gender makes and will make a difference in our judging. In short, I accept the proposition that a difference will be made by the presence of women on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging, but I accept there will be some based on my gender and the experiences it has imposed on me.
It seems to me that, since a feminist organization has to make a multitude of decisions (as does Judge Sotomayor), the gender of the leaders of the organization “will make a difference in [their] judging.” Therefore, since feminist organizations make high-level decisions that impact women, it is appropriate that those decisions are ultimately informed by the “experience of inherent physiological differences” of the women leaders of the organization.
The opinion that men should not have high-level leadership positions in a feminist organization does not mean, of course, that men should not be involved at all in feminist organizations. In fact, it makes sense that men be involved in the setting of strategy and analysis of issues. As Emily and I say in the “About” section of this blog, we consider ourselves feminists who “generally agree on the major issues, but come to those positions from much different perspectives arising from gender and generation.” Different perspectives are healthy for any feminist organization. I think Judge Sotomayor would agree.
Filed under: Male Perspectives
Well written
[...] the past, we have asked if men can be feminists. I believe wholeheartedly that they can, even those who do not readily seek to claim the [...]
[...] to a side court because they do not deem her to be attractive enough to play on Centre Court Can a Man Be a Feminist? On Dr. George [...]
Alex:
Your point about women needing to listen too is a VERY valid one. Indeed, the feminist movement has had SERIOUS problems exluding issues of women of color, and women below middle class, and it still goes on today. This is why I hope women of color and others from diverse socio-economic backgrounds will rise to more leadership positions, and the women who lead will hopefully be among those most able to listen.
But I am hesitant to stay this problem then makes men fit to lead feminist groups. There is a difference between participating in the movement and actually leading and making all decisions for an organization. Just as I would not want white people to lead an organization based on rights of people of color, I would not want a man to lead a feminist group. It is difficult for me to imagine a person outside of that population being responsible for making deicions for that entire group. Our experiences are very different in many ways that many can be blind to, simply because they never have to think about it during daily life. Just as many, many well meaning liberal white people still have internalized racism, I believe many men have internalized sexism, despite their intentions or education. This doens’t mean they will try to sabatage anything, but it could lead to disagreements, exlusion, and getting on the wrong path, accidently. And on a totally different note, women are still very underrepresented in leadership positions in pretty much all arenas– its also important to encourage them to develop these skills & produce great female leaders.
One of the most important roles that men can play are educating other men. For instance, John Stoltenberg’s Men Can Stop Rape campaign. Men are particularly valuable when they reach out to their male networks, which is something women have a little more difficulty doing.
Again, by no means should men not participate fully, or work on women’s rights, from a policy or legal angle, etc. I just speak specifically about taking the reigns from women in groups that talk specifically about feminism/the direction of the movement.
It’s interesting that Mike chose Judge Sotomayor as an example of someone whose “experience or inherent physiological differences” has made a difference in her judging, since there have been numerous analyses of her legal opinions lately showing just how often she has been in agreement with her male counterparts. But perhaps this “sameness” says more about her influence on the bench, the admirable traits of her male colleagues, or the normalizing (or as some might say, soul-crushing) force of the law.
But why can’t a man be in a “high-level position” in a feminist organization? Is there some inherent male-ness that will come out at a crucial moment — an inbred inability to ask for directions from his female constituency — that will sabotage the entire effort? Does the existence of gender inequality in a society mean that men, themselves the products of that society, are unable to make decisions to promote equality? I would hope that there are some men out there who, due to education, experience, or even genetics (I hear the Y chromosome is shrinking), are ready to take on a more prominent role in the feminist movement. And if such men don’t exist now, shouldn’t the movement be doing something to develop them?
I agree with Sara’s comment that movements should be by and for the people most affected. But saying that “a woman should be in charge” will only advance the movement so far. Not all women appear to be motivated by the same “experience or inherent physiological differences” (see, e.g., Sarah Palin). Moreover, having a woman at the helm of a feminist organization does not guarantee that all of the members’ voices will be heard. This, as I understand it, is the basis of the criticisms made by Angela Davis and others.
Emily’s point that male allies need to listen is equally true for the movement’s female leaders.
Here’s to listening!
[...] Space with a Feminist Man Posted on June 9, 2009 by Emily & Mike Last week Mike wrote a great post about his identity as a male feminist. I agree with his assessment, and since I am sharing a blog [...]
That’s a great point. For a woman to be against male feminists just seems counterproductive. I think most people would agree that the most basic definition of a feminist is someone who believes in/works for equal rights for women. How wonderful that we can include men in that category. All the same, I’d say that women should lead feminist groups for the same reasons that African Americans should lead the NAACP. The people who are most directly affected by a cause should lead the charge.