Stephen A. of the Feministing community writes about antifeminist attitudes in pro-feminist men's groups. Excerpt:
For my part, I don't have to deal with much male-ally infighting because I live in Mississippi, where the feminist/pro-feminist movement isn't really large enough to accommodate separate groups for allied men; we're mainstreamed into coeducational, women-led organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Mississippi Reproductive Justice Coalition, et. al. and work with women in these groups. There are some women-only groups, such as Sisters Increasing Positive Progression (SIPPI), but I've never seen a male ally group.
But my gut-level reaction, based on experience with human nature, is that whenever you create a group, that group tends to drift in the direction of acting in the interests of its most powerful members and/or the majority of members. This is because activism is basically selfish, and--this is key--being an ally doesn't remove that component. Allies aren't completely unselfish. We can't be; we're only human.
If you create a pro-feminist men's group, for example, then you may have a policy platform that focuses on women's rights, and literature that attempts to dismantle male violence and gender disparity--but, human nature being what it is, I'm betting the natural drift of the group among its most engaged members, e.g. the members who enjoy their work the most, will tend to favor the interests of the pro-feminist men who belong to the group, not the interests of the women who don't.
Personally, I'm active in the feminist movement in Mississippi not because I'm some swell guy who enjoys working against systems that unfairly benefit me, but because I enjoy the hell out of it. Many of my friends work in that movement; I understand the talking points, the policy, and the literature surrounding it; I have a history in it; I enjoy the work, and I particularly enjoy the work when we've accomplished something that feels meaningful, that feels like it might have changed our culture in some small way.
I think there's the perception that allies tend to participate in activist movements out of less selfish interests than members of the affected groups, and in my experience, that's not true at all. We're all spiritually fed by this stuff. Whites who gave their lives for black civil rights in this state, men who co-founded our feminist organizations, straights who take to the streets for LGBT rights--we're on the right side of history, but odds are good that we're still basically in it for us.
When we bear that in mind, the question of what we do when the "us" is made up entirely of allies, and not of members of the affected group, is clear: If we don't stay accountable to the real stakeholders in the women's movement--i.e., women--we're going to end up representing our own interests, and probably at their expense.
This isn't to say that there can't be a good, productive male ally movement; I'm not qualified to make that judgment. But I really, really don't see how there can be a genuinely pro-feminist male ally movement in isolation. We can't effectively represent women's interests without women's voices. So a practical way of addressing the problem, in a male allies' group, might be to integrate it at least a little at the leadership level so that men are still accountable to women, even if the men mainly keep to themselves.
I don't know; I don't have much experience with the pro-feminist men's movement. What say you, readers?
Related: History of Feminism in the United States
The question I have is, how do we as men reach out to other male allies? Clearly, if someone is attending a conference or browsing websites about stopping street harassment they at least have a little interest in the subject. There is a lot of infighting that needs to be addressed and I don't feel we male allies have been addressing it.This is a good question that I think can also be asked about straight allies on LGBT rights, white allies on racial justice issues, and anyone else who does activism dealing with identifiable groups with which s/he does not identify.
For my part, I don't have to deal with much male-ally infighting because I live in Mississippi, where the feminist/pro-feminist movement isn't really large enough to accommodate separate groups for allied men; we're mainstreamed into coeducational, women-led organizations like NOW, Planned Parenthood, the Mississippi Reproductive Justice Coalition, et. al. and work with women in these groups. There are some women-only groups, such as Sisters Increasing Positive Progression (SIPPI), but I've never seen a male ally group.
But my gut-level reaction, based on experience with human nature, is that whenever you create a group, that group tends to drift in the direction of acting in the interests of its most powerful members and/or the majority of members. This is because activism is basically selfish, and--this is key--being an ally doesn't remove that component. Allies aren't completely unselfish. We can't be; we're only human.
If you create a pro-feminist men's group, for example, then you may have a policy platform that focuses on women's rights, and literature that attempts to dismantle male violence and gender disparity--but, human nature being what it is, I'm betting the natural drift of the group among its most engaged members, e.g. the members who enjoy their work the most, will tend to favor the interests of the pro-feminist men who belong to the group, not the interests of the women who don't.
Personally, I'm active in the feminist movement in Mississippi not because I'm some swell guy who enjoys working against systems that unfairly benefit me, but because I enjoy the hell out of it. Many of my friends work in that movement; I understand the talking points, the policy, and the literature surrounding it; I have a history in it; I enjoy the work, and I particularly enjoy the work when we've accomplished something that feels meaningful, that feels like it might have changed our culture in some small way.
I think there's the perception that allies tend to participate in activist movements out of less selfish interests than members of the affected groups, and in my experience, that's not true at all. We're all spiritually fed by this stuff. Whites who gave their lives for black civil rights in this state, men who co-founded our feminist organizations, straights who take to the streets for LGBT rights--we're on the right side of history, but odds are good that we're still basically in it for us.
When we bear that in mind, the question of what we do when the "us" is made up entirely of allies, and not of members of the affected group, is clear: If we don't stay accountable to the real stakeholders in the women's movement--i.e., women--we're going to end up representing our own interests, and probably at their expense.
This isn't to say that there can't be a good, productive male ally movement; I'm not qualified to make that judgment. But I really, really don't see how there can be a genuinely pro-feminist male ally movement in isolation. We can't effectively represent women's interests without women's voices. So a practical way of addressing the problem, in a male allies' group, might be to integrate it at least a little at the leadership level so that men are still accountable to women, even if the men mainly keep to themselves.
I don't know; I don't have much experience with the pro-feminist men's movement. What say you, readers?
Related: History of Feminism in the United States
Comments
Evening everyone, first I want to say you can call me “pro feminest,” however I really just believe in equal rights in many aspects including, and especially, womens’.
As we all know there are pros and cons of everything but antifeminist is totally irrational.(save your breath, you can curse me but you will NEVER change my mind)
I ask, can you really change a man’s mind from being antifeminist ? Some positions are opinions and some are MENTAL ILLNESS ! ! !
Some subjects and their groups are best to just get together for their own good and leave the others, antifeminists, to themselves because most mental illness can not be cured and some people unpersuaded.