Why still call it Feminism?

[errantember]

It seems like some of my recent comments have been construed as anti-feminist, which isn't really true at all. My points have been that in some cases changes driven by feminism have lead to remedies that have lead to reverse discrimination, and that this is simply reversing the problem rather than solving it. Situations in which male power has been reduced due to feminist influence are definitely *not* all "progress" or positive, and anyone thinking otherwise is refusing to see the whole truth about a complex problem.

In relation to some recent LJ discussions on some of feminism's effects, spottedvasa sent me this interesting link on why the author thinks it's important to keep the term "feminism" when many of the things that have been addressed by feminism go beyond the boundaries of it's traditional "equal rights" definition.

The author makes several good points. I can certainly agree that the term "feminism" is relevant and important, and it makes sense for people to continue to use it. In fact, I agree with the article overall, with a few points of refutation:

2. Feminism is traditionally about women, hence the name. Do you have a problem with that?



- However much I feel that feminism benefits everyone, sexism has throughout the course of history disproportionately hurt women.

I have two problems with the way this is worded. Feminism doesn't *always* benefit everyone. Sometimes it benefits women at the expense of men, or one type or class of women over another type. My biggest problem, though, is more clearly re-enforced by the later quote:

- Although many feminisms (such as mine) focus to varying degrees on how to benefit men, we should honour our history by keeping the female-centric nature of the word in acknowledgment of the fact that women have been, and continue to be, more negatively affected by patriarchy than men. And we should never, EVER be ashamed of it.

It's a "common wisdom" that women have been the main victim's of the "patriarchy" (personally, if I'm looking to belittle through labeling I prefer "hetero-monogamo-patriarchy) and it's something that I believed fervently myself. It's worth noting that I identified as a feminist for many years, and it's a subject I've read about and studied extensively. I've read at least ten, if not more, books on the subject and empathize with many of it's views and goals. However, after reading books like "The Myth of Male Power" and "Stiffed", I've come to realize that men have their own enormous set of problems and oppressions right along side women, and that anyone failing look at both sides of the coin is doomed to elevate one sex at the expense of the other, even with the best of intentions. Similar to a women first reading "The Feminine Mystique", I initially felt angry and betrayed. It was as if many things I'd subconsciously felt were wrong with the world had suddenly been revealed from where they had been hiding. I then went down the same dark path of feeling betrayed by the opposite sex, and it's primary movement, feminism. But, having some knowledge of both sides of the issue, I came to realize one of the great mistakes of *both* sides, which is using the justification that "it's that side doing it to us!" to justify taking power away from one sex and giving it to the other. While both sexes (and yes, men can do this, too! Note the authors comment about men's oppression by the system.) can try stacking up their laundry list of issues with how the system victimizes them *more* than the other sex, I see this entire approach as bankrupt. Why? Because it promotes the belief that gaining power for your sex at the expense of the "more powerful" sex is a good general strategy, and also turns the exercise into some kind of zero-sum game in which the benefit of one sex has to come at the expense of the other. And therefore I disagree with the author. If your worldview requires the belief that you're entitled to something because of your "superior" level of victimization, you *should* be ashamed. If the work your doing for your sex isn't taking into account the needs, rights, and oppression by the system of the opposite sex, you have no right to claim you are working for equality, no matter how much better your efforts have made for the world for women. Even if equality is what's achieved, it's not what your working for, and the difference is critical.

I'm glad feminism exists and has made much of the progress it's made. In most cases, everyone has benefited. But feminism is necessarily biased toward women, and in some cases that leads away from equality rather than toward it. Both to prevent this from happening, and also to ensure a more complete understanding of our society and roles within it hurt *everyone*, an equivalent men's movement is necessary. In most cases, if both movements are doing what they should be, they'll be working *with* each other 90% of the time. But, although the cases where it really *is* a zero-sum game, and improvement for one sex *must* come at the expense of the other, *both* sides need sex-biased power bases from which to negotiate a sane compromise. And because feminism has been so unified and successful for so long, and *also* because men have chosen to be silent about their oppression by the system, there have been times in recent history when the result has been reverse discrimination against men, *not* because the end result "makes more sense" or "is more fair" than things were before, but because feminism has a broader power base than organizations fighting to end male oppression under our current system. When I say this, the objection is often "but the entire system is fighting for men!" Not entirely false, but far less true than most people believe, simply because the oppression of men is so much less visible than that of women.

The enemy is the system, not each other. And by working together to change it for superior *equality*, everybody wins in the big picture, even if it means some small losses in the smaller picture in the name of compromise. It's worth those small sacrifices on both sides to be able to relate as equals. But the reason *I* don't call myself a feminist anymore isn't because I don't see myself and feminists as having mostly similar goals, because I do. However, in situations where it really is zero-some power exchange, most often I'll be taking the male side. Why? Because I'm male, and I understand male issues in a way no women ever could, just as a women could women's issues. And so while my humanism and maleism are 90% on-track with the goals of feminism, I don't feel it's accurate to call myself a feminist.

And the second point of refutation?

- Much as I hate to generalize, chances are if you're a guy and you disassociate yourself from feminism you are to some extent afraid of being seen as being 'pussy-whipped'. And if you're a lady who does the same, you're kissing the ass of the patriarchy in order to get a pat on the head. Of course, this only applies if you support the general aims of feminism in the first place; if you're a right-wing misogynist ignore what I just said.

Yep, generalization generally gets you in trouble. This probably *is* true of many men, but it sure as hell isn't true of me. I am *proud* of my association with and support of feminism, and am a much more powerful person for having embraced my feminine side. Hell, I run around in babydoll t-shirts and pigtails a significant portion of the time! And, oddly, don't really feel any less masculine for it. Why? Because it's not an either/or thing. It's not even a continuum. Believing otherwise is putting faith in a false dichotomy. The author mentions her feminist focusing on breaking out of sex roles, and, in this case, I'm right there with you, sister! Most of the work in fixing the system isn't about making the system more biased toward one sex or another, it's about restoring wholeness to both sexes so that biases affect everyone more equally, and can be fought together.

Viva la revolution!