THE “OTHER” FEMINISTS: THE CHALLENGE OF FEMINIST MEN AND MASCULINITIES
Victoria Kannen
Many feminists argue that men who identify as feminist are appropriating an identity that
should and can never belong to them, while others claim that these men can use their identities to
disrupt restrictive gender roles and patriarchal masculinity. As a woman, I have the privilege to claim
feminism as my social and political way of life. My feminism is personal, theoretical, political,
academic, and constantly evolving. To use bell hooks’ simple, yet effective definition, I understand
feminism to be, “a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression” (2000: viii). This
movement must account for the possibility of feminist men, as women alone cannot end societal
oppressions. Relatively little critical literature discusses the political and social significance of
feminist men and masculinities, and how they embody a challenge to hegemonic masculinity by
exposing the limitless possibilities of feminist thought.
Feminists have never followed a unified political ideology. Claiming a monolithic feminism
would not only be inaccurate, but insulting. The current climate of many feminisms have largely
been informed by what is considered a “third wave approach”, which began in the early 1990s1:
New feminisms begin with concepts of difference rather than sameness, identity and
particularity rather than universality, celebrating the status of other or outsider rather than
wanting inside, embodiment rather than the view from nowhere, and finally, a relational
rather than binary approach (Arneil, 1999: 186).
Although I subscribe to most tenets of third-wave feminism, I find that the framework can be
limiting, as it primarily begins and ends with conceptualizing a ‘feminist’ as a person who originates
from the standpoint of a woman/woman-identified. My analysis will demonstrate how this womancentred perspective can not lead to the social equity that feminists desire, as denying any feminists –
women, men, and/or trans feminists – adequate representation within feminist theory will further
polarize the movement.
Feminism was created in response to male patriarchal oppression; because of the astounding
social advancements from the feminists that came before, many feminisms now have different aims.
The pain and struggle that some women experience when subordinated through domination can be
understood to be similar to the pain and struggle that some men also experience. I am not equating or
placing oppressions within a hierarchy; rather, I am addressing how feminisms have had/will need to
adapt to the growing concern of men who identify as oppressed because of racism, classism,
heterosexism, etc. Some of these men, in ideological and political opposition to the men’s rights
movement2 of the 1980s and early 1990s, believe feminism to be a positive political and social arena
for their identities to evolve. The acceptance of this feminist identity has been/is often difficult to
achieve. Some antifeminists and feminists alike have met feminist men with suspicion, criticism, or
disregard. These negative responses reflect how the adoption of feminist politics can unsettle
normativity – both within and outside of the feminist movement – while effectively disrupting what
it means to enact masculinity.
Richard Schmitt (2001) argues that male feminists, in particular, may “find” feminism
because of a disconnect between the oppressive history of their gender and their own identity and
political formations: “[T]here is only so much a man can say about how emotionally crippled and
violent and oppressive men are before he begins to hate himself…More ominous is the self-hatred –
not wanting to be oneself – that is not the result of profeminism but the reason for it” (398). Pain has
brought many of us to feminism – people of all genders – or it has found us once we are there, but
feminist consciousness can bring meaning back to chaos, to loss, and to oppression. To be a critical
ally to the feminist movement, one must understand that, “as part of various oppressor groups (white,
2
male, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle or above in the class structure), they did not individually
bring the situation about and they cannot just reach out with goodwill and solve it” (Bishop, 2002:
110). Men, who are disillusioned by their problematic expressions of gender and are seeking refuge
in a new identity, must not appropriate or ‘pass’ in order to gain feminist ‘cred’, as they would not be
reliable allies. Feminist men, then, must take responsibility for helping to solve issues of historical
injustice without taking on individual guilt, as it limits constructive and inclusive activism (Bishop,
2002).
Throughout this text, I will present issues that attend to the challenge of feminist men and
masculinities – challenges manifested by the very existence of feminist men and masculinities, as
well as the challenges to men who identify as feminist. Initially, I explore the notion of authenticity
in an attempt to disrupt the conception of who and what a feminist can be. The theoretical
underpinnings of feminist men, masculinities, (re)conceptualization of the ‘subject’, identities, and
sexuality are also addressed. I also include an important discussion of the contributions of feminist
men to popular culture and social discourse with concrete applications, so as to connect the
aforementioned sections that primarily address theory. Discussions of feminists invariably must
include discussions of oppressions and implications for future feminist movements, and thus I have
included an analysis of these intersections in relation to feminist men in the concluding sections of
this text.
Authenticities
Upsettingly, men who identify as feminist or pro(-)feminist3 are still a rare group. In Men
Doing Feminism (1998), Harry Brod argues that, “‘Pro-feminist’ came into use among men
supportive of feminism who believed that the term ‘feminist’ should be reserved exclusively for
women, that for men to call themselves feminists was another act of male appropriation for women’s
3
work and identities” (206). This standpoint is undoubtedly attempting to respect the history and
advancements that women have made using feminism to challenge patriarchy. However, the
meaning implied by “pro-feminist men” places men outside – and only in support of – the current
feminist movement and not as an active participant within it. As my partner also engages in feminist
politics, I asked him which title he preferred and he replied “feminist”; when I asked him to explain
why, he said “because pro(-)feminist means I am clapping on the sidelines and I have no agency to
participate”. hooks states, “[m]en who actively struggle against sexism have a place in the feminist
movement. They are our comrades” (2000/2: 82). I have chosen to use ‘feminist’ instead of ‘profeminist’, as I believe that men must be active feminist participants in order for equity and oppression
to be combated. Language is contentious and I am not advocating a haphazard co-optation of the
identity of feminist for any man who supports equality; however, I do believe it is an individual
choice – one that is arrived at through attaining a level of consciousness that is undeniably a (pro)(-)
feminist identity.
Upon considering my engagement with feminism and feminist men, I realize that I have a
duty to accept that which I cannot know as a feminist woman. I do not assume to speak for feminist
men, but feel it to be vital that I speak on the issue of feminist men as my context will provide insight
from the supposed “inside”. I also realize the limits of the literature on men and feminism, as I find
the topic to be newly emerging, but under-theorized. I believe these limits to be class-based, as much
of the available literature is written by academics for academics. Many men whose first language is
not English, or who are disabled or disadvantaged through social structures, do not have an
academics’ access to the opportunity, time or space within which to express their political and social
views – whether they are feminist or otherwise.
4
In conversation, I commonly find myself and my peers discussing the possibilities of
identifying what or who someone really is, as though they are hiding who they are and this “truth”
must be freed. Do feminist men always prescribe to feminist ideals in everyday life? Of course not;
feminist women, including myself, also engage in non-feminist practices, as that is unavoidable.
Contradiction must not be conflated with hypocrisy. Socialization occurs in a non-feminist/antifeminist culture, and to unlearn oppressive practices that each person has been socialized to believe is
a complex and lifelong process. Schacht and Ewing argue, “[t]o actually live as a feminist…involves
a full-time commitment to be vigilantly aware of the many obstructions that will keep her or him
from ever living such a state of being” (2004:119). Therefore, feminist women and men are
constantly in a state of becoming, which is as authentic a politic as anyone can aspire to have.
While there is much acceptance of the feminist thought emerging from men, male feminism
has also been met with resistance from the feminist community. Some argue that male feminist
thought will silence feminist women, and once again render women’s thought as secondary. Fidelma
Ashe (2004) argues that opposition to feminist men has partially occurred because of the lack of
authentic representations that certain men are seen to offer to feminist advancement: “Some feminists
have tended to be most concerned with the movement of white heterosexual men towards feminist
politics. Therefore, overall, it is white male experience that feminists have tended to view as singular
and as having no connection to feminism” (193). The stereotype of the middle-upper class, white,
male feminist is problematic as it negates the diverse masculinities, realities and experiences that
prompt men to form feminist consciousness.
Masculinities
It is a common mistake for theorists to equate masculinity with maleness – as though they are
one and the same. Participating in masculinities, however, reflects the practicing of a set of
5
behaviours and attitudes that are socialized as appropriate for a male gender. Masculinities are social,
while maleness is deemed biological.
It is quite easy to claim what masculinity is not; a far more difficult task is when one tries to
address what masculinity is. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary attempts to define this complex
concept in the short phrase: “[O]f or characteristic of men” and “(of a woman) having qualities
considered appropriate to a man” (2000:888). These descriptions are so essentialist and circular that
it seems as though masculinity is not considered monolithic. However, what these definitions fail to
capture is the hegemonic masculinity that is prevalent within societal discourse. R.W. Connell (1995)
argues, “[h]egemonic masculinity can be defined as the configuration of gender practice which
embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which
guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women”
(77). Connell is suggesting that hegemonic masculinity is contextual in time and space, and that it
must be understood in the cultural climate that masculinities are being enacted within.
Prevailing ideas about masculinity are rooted in historic conceptualizations of “proper”
colonial men. At the turn of the 19th century, racism, sexism and homophobia were rampant due to an
effort by white American male colonizers to distance themselves from those they considered inferior.
Michael Kimmel (2001) explains, “[t]hus black men were depicted as rampaging sexual beasts…gay
men as sexually insatiable…Native Americans as foolish and naïve children… southern European
men as sexually predatory and voracious, and Asian men as vicious and cruel torturers” (281).
Western conceptions of patriarchal masculinity have developed in conjunction with these violent
stereotypes in order to maintain white, economically advantaged, able-bodied, heterosexual male
supremacy.
6
As such, feminist men subvert the hegemonic masculinity that currently resides in Western
culture. Connell states, “hegemonic masculinity has social authority, and is not easy to challenge
openly” (1995:156). For example, current hegemonic masculinity attempts to maintain social
superiority through über-physicality, such as immense physical, mental, and emotional strength;
fearlessness; high socio-economic status; heterosexuality; interest and participation in sport; and
other cultural and racial stereotypes of supposed definitive masculinity. These problematic and
largely unattainable ideals are no more easily attainable to men, than feminine ideals are to women.
In his text “To Be Black, Male, and Feminist” (1998), Gary Lemons states, “I defy the notion that
black manhood and masculinity are about a ‘dick-thing’. Progressive black men who renounce sexist,
misogynist, and patriarchal practice against women…begin to mediate the painful historical memory
of our own dehumanization” (52). Understanding what sustains or causes an oppressive masculinity
allows feminist theorists to then define what a socially and personally healthy masculinity can be
(Clatterbaugh, 2004).
The disparity between the dominant masculinity and feminist masculinity creates
consequences for both feminism and masculinities. Patrick Hopkins addresses his separation from his
prescribed gender role in stating, ”I failed to accept my own obligations as a man, as an eventual
head of household, spiritual leader of my family, and protector of wife and children. I was, in effect,
rejecting my masculine duties, my native responsibilities” (1998:37). Hopkins understands his “duty”
to perform “male” in a limited heterosexist manner. He conveys how he received verbal and physical
sanctioning by his Christian community and his peer community for rejecting masculinized
activities, such as sports or mechanics, for the “feminized” interests of drama and piano (Hopkins,
1998). I argue that the social sanctioning that feminist men receive is a component of patriarchal
7
oppression, as they step outside their prescribed gender role and refuse participation in a discourse
that not only harms women, but men as well.
Feminist consciousness is a challenging intellectual act of empowerment, which could be
why feminist men are seen as a social anomaly. In the Spring 2005 issue of Bitch Magazine:
Feminist Response to Pop Culture, Judith Halberstam argues that “male stupidity is…a new form of
machismo, and it comes – perhaps not surprisingly – when alternative masculinities have achieved
some small measure of currency” (37). Halberstam is pointing to the hegemonic masculinity
currently represented in George W. Bush’s administration, popular films, and other cultural
production: “Yesteryear’s swaggering macho is this year’s stumbling, bumbling male; omniscience
is replaced by idiocy, irony is replaced by literality” (Halberstam, 2005: 38). She argues that these
representations are not being maintained in order to draw attention to the intellectual prowess of
women, but rather male stupidity “now passes as complexity”. Feminist men, then, are seen to not
relate to the plight of the “common man” and are denied progressive political representation of their
status as feminist subjects because of it.
Subjects
The notion of subjecthood is best explained by Judith Butler, as she states, “the ‘I’ is
constituted by positions, and these ‘positions’ are not merely theoretical products, but fully
embedded organizing principles of material practices and institutional arrangements, those matrices
of power and discourse that produce me as a viable ‘subject’” (1992:9). Poststructuralist feminists
have reimagined gender identity as something that cannot belong to the ‘subject’, but rather as
something that is continually reconstituted through practice and experience. Therefore, masculinity is
no more unitary than male experience:
8
Masculinity has multiple and ambiguous meanings which alter according to context and
over time. Meanings of masculinity also vary across cultures and admit to cultural
borrowing; masculinities imported from elsewhere are conflated with local ideas to
produce new configurations (Cornwall & Lindisfarne, 1994:12, as qtd in Peterson,
2003:58).
This implies that the ‘subject’ can never be complete, but rather is constantly engaged in forming and
reforming identities within and through experiences.
Feminist discourse has long attempted to (re)claim what it means to be a woman – what it
can mean and how it will be received. A dualistic approach has often been used to understand how
women are in relation to men, how the diverse identities of women are somehow essentially different
from those of men. Feminist men can challenge this dualism, as they can embody the permeability of
gender. In Schmitt’s (2001) personal narrative, Proud to Be a Man?, he states, “[b]ut since we are not
profeminists with unspecified gender but specifically profeminist men, we struggle, in fact, against
ourselves, against what most persons in our society expect us to be, and against what we were raised
to be” (399). I argue that Schmitt is expressing a form of self-conscious partiality, as his male
subjecthood and identities do not ‘belong’ to any one feminism or masculinity, but rather exist within
a state of continual hybridization.
Identities
The participation of feminists, including myself, in using identity statements to convey
theoretical and social perspectives is arguably limiting, but this is a limitation imposed through
language and social discourse. However, regardless of how extensive descriptions of identity can be,
there will always be exclusions and dislocation between identity labels and lived experiences. The
insufficiencies of identity categories are embodied within the personal narrative of C. Jacob Hale, an
9
FTM (Female-to-Male) feminist. Hale states, “[u]nlike non-transsexual men, ftms have lived parts of
our lives as girls and as women with fairly unambiguous female embodiments…we have had years
of experiencing the oppression to which women and girls are subjected” (1998:101). As a feminist
who has no fixed gender, Hale feels dislocated from the identities that are seen to define the feminist
movement:
I am, i.e., not fully man nor woman, nor male nor female, nor medically-induced
hermaphrodite nor drag queen nor butch leatherman nor lesbian man nor faggot butch dyke
nor transsexual nor ftm nor transgendered nor third gender nor fourth gender
nor…anything, since I do not fit the paradigms of any of these categories (1998:115).
Hale’s argument speaks to how performativity can subvert normativity, and in so doing can
challenge the restrictive structures around which society functions.
Connell argues that, “[t]he constitution of masculinity through bodily performance means
that gender is vulnerable when the performance cannot be sustained” (1995:54). Connell underscores
the way in which men who are disabled fail to conform to masculinist discourse and are marginalized
because of it. Ableist discourse disables unacceptable bodies so as to not only place them on the
margins, but to basically strip them of their other identities so that their disability is all that defines
them4. In relation to hegemonic masculinity, men’s physical abilities are deemed fundamental to
their strength and power as men. Thus, if one’s physical abilities are found to be inadequate, then
their masculinity is also inadequate. As such, reclaiming the bodies and experiences of disabled
people through feminist narratives will force the reconceptualization of ability within femininities
and masculinities.
10
There are infinite ways in which identities can combine. The process of reimagining
constructions of masculinity must necessarily account for interactions of identities, as they constantly
define and redefine what masculinity can be and for whom. For example, Ashe (2004) argues:
Recognizing the diversity of masculinity in itself does not tell us anything about the
possibility of male feminism. However, the deconstruction of masculinity as a unitary
category has led some feminists to argue that men’s experience of class, ethnic, or
homophobic oppression may promote feminist engagement by some men (193).
Understanding the interaction of class, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, spirituality etc. is necessary if one
aims to attend to the subjectivities of feminist men.
Queering Masculinities
Gender identities that subvert hegemonic masculinity are powerful tools that feminists have
for challenging oppressive patriarchal masculinity. Halberstam states, “[f]eminists, transgender and
butch activists, and drag kings5 have all demanded more from masculinity in recent years, and have
lovingly and creatively re-envisioned it without past levels of misogyny and sexism” (2005:38).
Attempting to re-envision masculinity via sexuality can be a very powerful tool for feminist men –
for those who identify as queer and those who recreate what it means to be straight and male. In spite
of the backlash that can be received for transgressing normative sexuality, many feminist men
consider sexuality to be a motivating factor for political change. Brian Pronger (1998) radically
argues, “[w]hat I am suggesting is that men need to be free to experience the erotic intensity of the
deterritorialization of their masculine space. Those who are most reluctant to open their mouths and
anuses to other men are those who are in most need of doing so” (77). Pronger’s tongue-in-cheek
11
suggestion is calling for straight men to “deterritorialize” their masculinity; in so doing, they will
open themselves up to a feminist desire and eroticism that is anti-misogynistic and liberating.
Going beyond a woman-centred feminism means that we must deconstruct the taken-forgranted attitude of gender and its ties to sex and sexuality. Eleanor MacDonald states, “[f]rom both
the feminist and the gay and lesbian communities, the critique of traditional gender systems has
stayed at the level of criticizing the attribution of specific gender behaviours to specific sexes, and
not moved beyond this to consider the implications of having a gender at the level of personal
identity” (2000:286). In order to subvert hegemonic masculinity, the subject must somehow be
separated from its assumed gender referent in order to transcend limitation and sexual normativity.
Patriarchal culture has made it very clear that gay men, even hyper-masculinized gay men, do
not fit the mould of what a real man is, as ‘gay’ is always equated with lacking masculinity (Connell,
1995). However, pop culture has introduced an interesting phenomenon of television makeover
shows where gay men “teach” straight men how to “do straight”. For example, the very popular
Queer Eye for the Straight Guy’s motto is “Five gay men, out to make over the world – one straight
guy at a time” (bravotv.com, 2005). Are the “fab five”, as they are commonly known, feminists
disguised as superficial makeover gurus? Their makeover intentions actually appear to be aimed at
improving the lives of straight women by teaching these men about “culture, interior design,
grooming, food and wine, and fashion” – things discourses of hegemonic masculinity deny are
important for men, as they are intrinsic to ascriptions of the private sphere. Though the show may
stereotype gay men as all-knowing style aficionados, it gives social credence to queer men while
empowering straight men to engage in practices they were never taught to think were anything other
than “women’s work”. This is not to say that the show is unproblematic, especially in terms of
maintaining stereotypes of what creates happiness for Western women or what it means to be
12
straight, but it does subvert sexual power dynamics, which may be as much as one can hope for on
primetime network television.
Contributions
Feminism exists because of the awareness of social and political patriarchal power and the
understanding of how the abuse of this power oppresses all minority groups. The work of the
feminist movement “must be done by both women and men, separately and together, if we are to
move beyond the narrow range of options that can be seen through patriarchal lenses” (Schacht &
Ewing, 2004:19). Feminist men must not be complicit in their privileged status as men; they must be
conscious of social inequality and their role in perpetuating it. Men must actively oppose oppression
and must realize that not doing so is to be complicit in the perpetuation of sexism, violence, poverty,
racism, ableism, and homophobia.
There have been expressions of the relevance and currency of male feminism prior to the 21st
century. John Stuart Mill’s writings, such as The Subjection of Women (1869) and that of his partner
Harriet Taylor were considered to be major building blocks in liberal feminism and the suffrage
movement. Fast-forwarding to current expressions of the feminist work of men, The White Ribbon
Campaign (WRC) is a Canadian activist organization of men that aims to end men’s violence against
women. Similarly, the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS), is an American
activist organization of men who are “pro-feminist, gay affirmative, anti-racist, and dedicated to
enhancing men’s lives” (nomas.org, 2005). Initiatives such as these6 are not only supportive of the
feminist movement, but they create spaces for men to raise social consciousness about their lack of
complicity with sexism and oppression. I believe that these activists are not taking up space that
13
belongs to women’s voices, but rather they are creating space for men who refuse to participate in the
subjection of women, and ultimately further the feminist movement.
I feel that it is important to give voice to some of the many feminist men that attempt to
confront oppression through their art. For example, the American hip-hop rapper Talib Kweli is a
profeminist7 artist that offers songs such as “Joy” (2002), which remarkably talks about the benefits
of midwifery over hospital birth. Jason Birchmeier (2005) describes Kweli as “one of the late 90s’
most critically successful rappers” (allmusic.com). Secondly, in the important memoir How I
Learned to Snap (2003), Kirk Read states, “I think that every gay man needs to get over his fears of
vaginas if we’re going to stop being so sexist” (as qtd by Rachel Kramer Bussell, 2003). Bussell
comments that “[i]t was so refreshing to read that, and I think it’s an incredibly positive sign that gay
men are recognizing they aren’t immune to sexism” (2003:59). Additionally, two of Jim McKay’s
films, Girls Town (1996) and Our Song (2000), are critically acclaimed feminist-inspired films that
McKay feels he had to make during the time in his life when he “was becoming a political being…I
studied feminism, but not in a formal way, and through that I saw the need for the stories of real
women. When I started making films, I was trying to fill that specific void” (Richards, 2005:42).
These men provide a valuable contribution to feminism by working with both men and women to
reimagine what artistic cultural production and masculinity can represent.
Oppressions /Violence
Many feminist theorists have argued that focusing on the oppression of men further
marginalizes women who are oppressed and situates men as the ‘subject’ once again. As an activist
for women’s rights, I understand women to experience oppressions that men – as a privileged group
– will never experience, but this fact does not negate my advocacy for human rights. To varying
14
degrees, both men8 and women can be oppressors and oppressed9, and as such, my attention here
turns to the oppression of feminist men.
Violence is an important issue in relation to why some men become feminists, why some
men need feminism, and what feminism can do for those who are oppressed by violence. Schacht
and Ewing (2004) state, “[d]aily, untold numbers of people are harmed, wounded, and forever
scarred in men’s pursuit of doing masculinity. These seemingly faceless individuals are in actuality
our partners, children, parents, siblings, and friends, as well as ourselves” (37). The harm that they
are referring to need not be thought of entirely as physical violence and sexual abuse (which some of
it is, of course), but the harm that is manifested in the maintenance of oppressions, social
subordination, verbal abuse, capitalist gains, and militarism – to name a few. In calling for a
reimagining of the work for feminists against violence, hooks states:
By only calling attention to male violence against women, or making militarism just
another expression of male violence, we fail to adequately address the problem of violence
and make it difficult to develop viable resistance strategies and solutions…While we need
not diminish the severity of the problem of male violence against women or male violence
against nations or the planet, we must acknowledge that men and women have together
made [the West] a culture of violence and must work together to transform and recreate
that culture. (2000/2:131).
In calling for an alliance to end violence, these theorists reify the importance of including men as
viable feminist theorists and as allies in the activist struggle.
Steven P. Schacht (2004) addresses the contradictions inherent in labelling bodies as the
dominators versus the dominated, as these positions are not only contextual, but can exist
simultaneously. He states, “men do not experience any sort of gender oppression, but many men do
15
experience class, race, and sexual orientation oppression” (Schacht & Ewing, 2004: 29)
10
. The
simultaneity of oppression positions homosexual masculinities at the bottom of the gender hierarchy
among men, while class and race relations interact to further this oppression (Connell, 2001).
Additionally, hooks discusses the experiences of many working-class men and/or men of colour who
have been socialized to maintain sexism even as their lack of social power results in frustration, as
these men often “believe that there are privileges and powers [they] should possess solely because
[they are] male” (2000/2:75). It is likely that these men will be violent to women and/or other men in
order to dominate someone they know has less power than they have. She states, “he is an oppressor.
He is an enemy to women. He is also an enemy to himself. He is also oppressed” (hooks, 2000/2:75).
Naming the oppression of minority men does not excuse the violence they may generate, but it does
speak to how men can be relationally oppressors and oppressed.
Dissolving the polarization of the identity categories reflects the breakdown of dichotomies
of domination and subordination. Power relations must be used to deconstruct oppression, which is in
opposition to the technique of polarizing male/female, white/non-white, gay/straight, rich/poor,
abled/disabled, etc., as these categories do not exist in a vacuum. In the schemata presented above,
feminist men – because they are men – remain on the dominant side of the male/female binary, as
though their privilege is fixed and impenetrable. As such, politically progressive men remain in the
dominant group, but their feminist consciousness struggles against collusion with gender oppression.
Implications
We are in a time when media sources claim the death of feminism has come and gone. I
refuse to address the ignorant triviality that this idea maintains. Feminism is fundamental to our lives,
especially for those who do not yet realize what they may oppressively deny, maintain, and produce.
I believe that feminism is at an interesting turning point – a time when terms are being reclaimed,
16
ideas are being reimagined, and oppressions are acquiring names. Schacht and Ewing claim, “[t]ime
will tell if a new, inclusive banner will be needed, but the gendered understandings of how
oppression operates that feminism has made possible must never be lost if these new coalitions for
social justice [between women and men] are to become successful” (2004:180). Feminism is
transforming, in part because feminist men have become a viable part of the movement.
Butler states, “[f]eminism is about the social transformation of gender relations. Probably we
could all agree on that, even if ‘gender’ is not the preferred word for some” (2004:204). This social
transformation is happening now – men are resisting oppressive regimes; men are supporting women
and women’s spaces; men are renouncing their unearned privileges. I believe this because I see it
everyday in my classrooms, in my culture, in my home – I know it is possible.
Notes
1
For a detailed history of third wave feminism see Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism (1997) Eds. L.
Heywood & J. Drake.
2
For discussion and critique of the men’s rights movement see Women Respond to the Men’s Movement (1992) Ed. Kay
Leigh Hagan. and “Counterattack: The Men’s Rights Movement” Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity, 2nd Edition
(1997) Kenneth Clatterbaugh.
3
For a detailed discussion of the political choices regarding naming, including the use of “pro” and the significance of
hyphen-use see “To Be a Man, or Not to be a Man – That Is the Feminist Question” Men Doing Feminism (1998) Henry
Brod.
4
For a discussion of ableist discourse, see Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity (1998) Simi Linton.
5
For a discussion of female masculinity, see Female Masculinity (1998) Judith Halberstam.
6
I do not want the contributions of profeminist organizations to be confused with men’s rights organizations that are
implicitly or explicitly antifeminist such as savethemales.ca or mensactivism.org.
7
I choose to label Kweli’s politics as “profeminist” because I do not feel it is appropriate to label him a feminist, as I do
not know if he identifies himself as feminist.
8
Men can be oppressed, perhaps not by their location as male, but certainly through other aspects of their identities such as
race, class, sexuality, ability, etc.
9
Patriarchal oppression of women is systemic and global, while oppression by women to others usually occurs on a more
individual, localized level.
10
I extend Schacht’s argument to include disability oppression – the most under-theorized area in social research.
17
References
Arneil, B. 1999. Politics and Feminism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Ashe, F. 2004. Deconstructing the Experiential Bar: Male Experience and Feminist Resistance. Men
and Masculinities 7 (2): 187-204.
Birchmeier, J. 2005. allmusic ((( Talib Kweil > Overview ))). Accessed November 2, 2005.
<http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=TALIB|KWELI&uid=MIW02050
4141257&sql=11:blc8b5x4msq0~T0>.
BravoTv. 2005. BRAVO>Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Accessed November 2, 2005.
<http://www.bravotv.com/Queer_Eye_for_the_Straight_Guy/>.
Brod, H. 1998. To Be a Man, or Not to Be a Man – That Is the Feminist Question. In Men Doing
Feminism, edited by T. Digby, 198-212. New York: Routledge.
Bussell, R. K. 2003. Kirk Reed. Bust: For Women With Something to Get Off Their Chest. Summer:
59.
Butler, J. 1992. Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of Postmodernism. In Feminists
Theorize the Political, edited by J. Butler & J. W. Scott, 3-21. New York: Routledge.
-----. 2004. Undoing Gender. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
Clatterbaugh, K. 1997. Contemporary Perspectives on Masculinity, Second Edition. Philadelphia:
Westview.
-----. 2004. What is Problematic About Masculinities? In Feminism and Masculinities, edited by P. F.
Murphy, 200-213. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connell, R.W. 1995. Masculinities. California: University of California Press.
-----. 2001. The Social Organization of Masculinity. In The Masculinities Reader edited by S. M.
Whitehead & F. J. Barrett, 30-50. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hagan, K. L. Ed. 1992. Women Respond to the Men’s Movement. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Halberstam, J. 2005. Dumb & Getting Dumber: Sideways, Spongebob, and the New Masculinity.
Bitch: Feminist Response to Pop Culture 28: 36-39,92.
-----. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press.
Hale, C. J. 1998. Tracing a Ghostly Memory in My Throat: Reflections on Ftm Feminist Voice and
Agency. In Men Doing Feminism, edited by T. Digby, 99-129. New York: Routledge.
18
Heywood, L., and J. Drake, Eds. 1997. Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
hooks, b. 2000. Feminism is for Everybody. Cambridge, South End Press.
-----. 2000/2. Feminist Theory From Margin to Center, Second Edition. Cambridge, South End Press.
Hopkins, P. D. 1998. How Feminism Made a Man Out of Me: The Proper Subject of Feminism and
the Problem of Men. In Men Doing Feminism, edited by T. Digby, 33-56. New York:
Routledge.
Kimmel, M. S. 2001. Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of
Gender Identity. In The Masculinities Reader, edited by S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett, 266287. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kweli, T. 2002. Joy. Quality. Album released from okayplayerrecords.
Lemons, G. 1998. To Be Black, Male, and Feminist: Making Womanist Space for Black Men on the
Eve of a New Millennium. In Feminism and Men: Reconstructing Gender Relations, edited by
S. P. Schacht & D. W. Ewing, 43-66. New York: New York University Press.
Linton, S. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York: New York University
Press.
MacDonald, E. 2000. Critical Identities: Rethinking Feminism Through Transgender Politics. Open
Boundaries: A Canadian Women’s Studies Reader. Toronto: Prentice- Hall.
Makow, H. 2005. savethemales.ca: Exposing Feminism and the New World Order. Accessed
November 2, 2005. <http://www.savethemales.ca/index.html>.
McKay, J. Director, Editor, Writer. 1996. Girls Town. Boomer Pictures.
-----. Director, Producer, Writer. 2000. Our Song. Beech Hill Films.
Mill,
J. S. 1869. The Subjection of Women.
<http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm>.
Accessed
April
2,
2005.
National Organization for Men Against Sexism. 2005. NOMAS: NOMAS M&M29 Home Accessed
November 2, 2005. <http://www.nomas.org/sys-tmpl/html/>.
Oxford University Press. 2001. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Toronto: Oxford University Press
Canada.
19
Peterson, A. 2003. Research on Men and Masculinities: Some Implications of Recent Theory for
Future Work. Men and Masculinities 6 (1): 54-69.
Pronger, B. 1998. On Your Knees: Carnal Knowledge, Masculine Dissolution, Doing Feminism. In
Men Doing Feminism, edited by T. Digby, 69-80. New York: Routledge.
Read, K. 2003. How I Learned to Snap. New York: Penguin.
Richards, A. 2005. xy Files: Jim McKay Interviewed by Amy Richards. Bitch: Feminist Response to
Pop Culture 28: 42-43, 93.
Schacht, S. P., and D. W. Ewing. 2004. Feminism with Men: Bridging the Gender Gap. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Schmitt, R. 2001. Proud to Be a Man? Men and Masculinities 3 (4): 393-404.
The White Ribbon Campaign. 2005. The White Ribbon Campaign. Accessed November 2, 2005.
<http://www.whiteribbon.ca/>.
20