A Letter From a Young Pro-Feminist: Responding to Ryan

(Note: I'm experimenting with writing longer posts without sticking key phrases in bold.  Long-time readers are welcome to weigh in on whether or not they find the presence or absence of bold type preferable.) 

While I was on "blog hiatus" last month, I received this e-mail from a fellow named Ryan:

Hi. I am a 17-year old teenage male living near Los Angeles. I am emailing you today because I have had a set of questions floating around in my head ever since I decided to become a feminist a few days ago, but especially since reading " Some thoughts on pro-feminism, young men, and always taking women's emotional temperature."

I want to know why you think a man should call himself "pro-feminist" instead of just "feminist?" What do you think about having both words subsumed under the term "gender egalitarianism?" I've often thought of just calling myself that, but that would be different because if people (including people who are at least somewhat sexist but don't really know it or think it) would simply think "Oh, I'm a gender egalitarian as well," when really they would not likely share with me a radical conception of gender equality...

How should I confront others (guys and girls) when they do or say sexist things? I once called someone who said something sexist outright a sexist. She didn't understand at first, and I had to explain it to her. The exchange, in retrospect, was less than adequate. How should I have responded?

How ought I go about finding relationships with less-sexist or perhaps even outright feminist girls at this stage and when I get to college?

Gosh, Ryan sounds a lot like some of the boys I know in my All Saints youth group!  He asks some important questions, and I'll do my best to answer them.  (Forgive the "Rilke-esque" title of the post).

1.  I use the term "pro-feminist" because when I was first coming into the men's movement, that was the term that was used by the men I most respected.  The leading organization of "feminist men" in the USA remains NOMAS (National Organization for Men Against Sexism); they identify themselves as "pro-feminists."  The term is used also by Michael Kimmel, whose work (particularly his magisterial Manhood in America) has more or less single-handedly created the academic field of men's studies.

Another wonderful Michael, Australian Michael Flood, has a handy-dandy "FAQs about Pro-Feminist Men" available on his website.  In response to the same question Ryan asks, Flood writes:

Feminism is a movement and a body of ideas developed primarily by, for and about women. Men can never fully know what it is like to be a woman. If we call ourselves "feminists", we run the risk of colonising feminism or looking like we're saying we've got all the answers.

Some feminist women argue that men CAN call themselves feminists, as long as they live up to the same standards as women who are feminists -- to support the equality of women and men. Nevertheless, most pro-feminist men use the label "pro-feminist" rather than "feminist". We believe that there is plenty men can and should do to support feminism, and we don't need to call ourselves "feminists" to do it.

I certainly don't correct men who self-describe as feminists.  But for all of these reasons, I prefer to call myself "pro-feminist."

2.  As for calling other people -- men or women, young or old -- on their sexism, that's a tricky one.  Indeed, the post of mine that Ryan mentions earned me a lot of criticism for "going too easy" on a young man struggling with his own sexist behavior.  I wish, Ryan, I had an easy "how to" manual to make confronting sexism easier!  Here are some general guidelines:

a.  Before you challenge a sexist remark or bring up someone else's misogynistic behavior, make sure you are clear about what you want to say.  Simply announcing "That's sexist!" isn't going to be helpful if you don't have a clear response to the inevitable riposte of "Why?"  With a friend, it's often better to bring up the offense at a later time, after you've had the opportunity to reflect on exactly what it is that you found so troublesome about their words or their actions.

b .  Recognize that for a man to call a woman on her own sexism is highly problematic from a feminist standpoint. This does not mean that pro-feminist men can never criticize women's words or behaviors!  It does mean that we have to recognize that one of the features of a sexist culture is that it gives men permission to evaluate women without their consent.  If a young man (or a man of any age, really) starts writing up "sexism tickets" and giving them to his female friends, he risks a profound disconnect between his beliefs and his behavior.  Whatever the nobility of his intentions, his actions will very likely come across as paternalistic, patronizing, and (not surprisingly), chauvinistic.  Sometimes it's better to begin by asking questions, trying to discover the intent of the person who made the sexist remark.  Frequently, just by allowing folks to talk out loud about their beliefs, you'll find the right "trail-head" into a productive discussion.

3.  Ryan's third question is about meeting young feminist women now, while he is presumably still in high school, and later when he gets to college.  It's an important question.  While I suppose it is possible that some men adopt pro-feminism as a guise, hoping to use a facade of sensitivity in order to meet more women, most young men like Ryan don't see anti-sexism as a strategy to get laid.  At the same time, no matter how sincere their politics, young people do want to meet prospective romantic partners who share at least some of their views.  So here's what I'd say to Ryan:

Congratulations on making a commitment at a young age to living out an anti-sexist, pro-feminist life.  That's very commendable.  As you probably are already aware, many people (both men and women alike) will view your decision to "come out" as a feminist man (or a "gender egalitarian",if that's the term you end up using) with derision or suspicion.  You may encounter people who will ridicule you, question your masculinity, and question your motives.  They will insinuate that you are gay, or that you are just trying to get laid, or that you are filled with toxic self-loathing.  You must remember that every man who does public anti-sexist work is hit with one or all of these accusations.  You aren't alone.

One obvious way to meet like-minded young men and women is to take courses on women's studies or gender.  Most colleges have such courses, and while you are still in high school, you can enroll (ahem!) in your local community college. You'll meet lots of folks close to your own age who share some of your views.  It can be enormously refreshing and liberating to feel surrounded by folks who believe as you do, particularly when you come out of a place (like your average American high school) where your beliefs have set you radically apart from your peers.

You can do volunteer work.  Right now, Feminist Majority has a Feminist Campus project with a Student Action Network.  They even have a Feminist High School Project!  Check it out!

Trust me on this: there are many young feminist women out there eager to meet young pro-feminist men.  Obviously, for a number of reasons, you may have to spend some time "proving" your feminist bona fides.  It'll quickly be clear whether you can "talk the talk", but feminism is also about "walking the walk" in public -- and in private.  Don't be hurt or frustrated if you encounter people who are initially suspicious of your professed egalitarianism.  In our deeply sexist culture, men are "guilty until proven innocent."  That's our own damned fault, frankly, and the sooner we cheerfully accept the burden of proving ourselves innocent, the better off we're all going to be.  (I've blogged about this before.)

In any event, Ryan, for what it's worth, I'm proud of you.  I'm grateful that you wrote to me, and I ask you to keep in touch.  Peace, my brother, and courage.

Comments

[Sara]

Nevertheless, most pro-feminist men use the label "pro-feminist" rather than "feminist".

Is this just a tautology, or is it that most men who consciously support feminism call themselves "pro-feminists?" If so, where did you learn that? I'd never heard the term until the last 6 months or so, myself.

[Hugo]

Sara, that's Michael Flood's inelegant phrasing,not mine. But his point is clear: for most men who have a long history in the movement, "pro-feminist" is the preferred term.

[Rex]

In our deeply sexist culture, men are "guilty until proven innocent." That's our own damned fault, frankly, and the sooner we cheerfully accept the burden of proving ourselves innocent, the better off we're all going to be.

Man, I hate to make my first post on your blog in a while one that disagrees with you since you've been on a ROLL lately (along with Happy). But I really can't agree with you on "guilty until proven innocent". Males are not born sexists, homophobes, rapists, or what have you.

Sorry, but I've read far too many articles and reports about countries and cities in those countries where "guilty until proven innocent" is the default operating standard and it's nothing short of hell.

[Randy]

Damn, Hugo tries to poison another young male mind.

[Jeremy Henty]

Hugo - so you're giving up bold, are you? That wouldn't be anything to do with my comment elsewhere? Just wait 'til I start criticising your use of whitespace! ;-)

Rex - would the pill be easier to swallow if Hugo said "potentially threatening until proven good-intentioned" rather than "guilty until proven innocent"? Yes, the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is vital to a free society, but it only applies if you are in court being charged with a crime. Elsewhere you do *not* have the right to be assumed harmless. If I'm walking home late at night and a woman takes the trouble to keep her distance from me, well, it really sucks that she's acting as though I'm a potential threat but guess what, I just have to deal with it. I *don't* have the right to demand that a passing stranger treats me the way I would prefer them to.

[Hugo]

Jeremy, you were one of a couple of folks to mention that recently, so yes, you had an influence. And you draw the right distinction here, one I tried to make in the original post (linked above).

[Rex]

Rex - would the pill be easier to swallow if Hugo said "potentially threatening until proven good-intentioned" rather than "guilty until proven innocent"?

Honestly? No, it wouldn't because the thought behind it is the same as in the original statement. I thought we moved away from the "people are inherently evil" tripe of ages long dead. The majority of people are just like you and I, normal folks just trying to get on with life.

Yes, the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is vital to a free society, but it only applies if you are in court being charged with a crime.

In courts, no doubt it's essential and to a lesser extent, it should apply to the rest of everyday life.

Elsewhere you do *not* have the right to be assumed harmless. If I'm walking home late at night and a woman takes the trouble to keep her distance from me, well, it really sucks that she's acting as though I'm a potential threat but guess what, I just have to deal with it. I *don't* have the right to demand that a passing stranger treats me the way I would prefer them to.

What next? China's anticipating a massive unmarried underclass of young men, a prime breeding ground for organized crime recruits, possibly even rebellion. Should the Chinese government implant gps trackers in the torsos of these men and any males born from then on because of this "potential threat" view?

What if the Andrea Yates situation was used as a reason to reinforce this belief against women, taking away their children because of "potential threat" caused by PTSD, common in new mothers.

Hugo, I apologize for derailing the subject. Just reading about a pro-feminist in high school of all places, is enough to get me giddy for the future.

[wolfa]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, apparently. If you're walking home at night and keep your distance from a stranger, you're unfairly assuming that this guy is a threat to you. But if something happens to you, why did you act as if a strange person on the street wasn't going to attack you?

Rex, there's a difference between walking on the opposite side of the street from someone and implanting a chip into someone. I'm not taking anything away from you or doing anything to you by wanting a lot of space.

[Indecisive]

This may surprise you given my recent comment on exclamation points, but I actually find the bold quite effective most of the time. Perhaps it's b/c it tends to be a less ambiguous typographical marker (i.e., indicates emphasis, to make something stand out, and in a way that is clearly marked from the beginning of the bolding (my habit of nesting parentheses is also clearly marked but potentially much more confusing than bolding), which is also helpful for when reading with little time available).

As for Ryan, if feminism is the only ideological area of agreement that he's trying to find in a romantic partner, boy is he lucky. I'm 27 and admittedly haven't completely landed yet ideologically, but I have yet to meet someone who really comes close to me in thinking about religion and politics and feminism and all those other important things (not that I'd have time if I did meet her, given the whole grad school thing).

Rex: no, men "are not born sexists, homophobes, rapists, or what have you," not literally they aren't, but they are born into a culture in which women are in practice considered second class citizens; and everyone is enculturated into that mentality, those habits of thinking, long before any of us have the ability to resist accepting it as normative (yes, that's my short bastardization of Bourdieu; or perhaps a more "liberal" interpretation of original sin). In this sense, I think it is actually quite accurate to say that we are culturally "born" with tendencies toward sexism and racism and homophobia, and that's something all of us should struggle against and realize that others rightfully suspect us b/c of it.

[Jeremy Henty]

Jeremy >> Rex - would the pill be easier to swallow if Hugo said "potentially threatening until proven good-intentioned" rather than "guilty until proven innocent"?

Rex > No, it wouldn't because the thought behind it is the same as in the original statement.

Nonsense. There's a world of difference between "men should be considered de facto guilty of some 'crime' of 'sexism'" (which I *don't* endorse) and "men should accept that in a sexist society it is reasonable for Joanna Random Woman to suspect John Random Male of sexism unless he demonstrates otherwise" (which I think is common sense).

Rex > The majority of people are just like you and I, normal folks just trying to get on with life.

I respectfully propose that you place that opinion in a location unilluminated by solar radiation. You may speak for yourself, but you have just insulted me, the owner of this blog, all my coworkers (I work at an educational charity), large numbers of my friends and acquaintances (who choose to be teachers and researchers rather than do something more lucrative) and just about every policeman, soldier, fireman[*], nurse ..., in short, at least a billion people who have decided to do more with their lives than "just get by". People aren't inherently evil but some people are disgracefully complacent and in practice that is often similarly bad.

Rex > to a lesser extent, ["innocent until proven guilty"] should apply to the rest of everyday life.

Yes, but to a *lesser* extent. No-one argued that a *potential* threat grants anyone the right to do anything they like (which makes most of the rest of your post a straw man). I just said that you can't demand someone else to treat you as harmless. Obviously it would be out of order for a passerby to Mace me just in case I was planning to assault her. And China probably is facing a demographic crisis from its young male population and I don't know what they should do about that but, ..., your point?

Jeremy

[*] Apologies for the gendered terminology, it's nearly 2am here in the UK and my mental thesaurus powered down an hour ago.

[Rex]

Rex, there's a difference between walking on the opposite side of the street from someone and implanting a chip into someone. I'm not taking anything away from you or doing anything to you by wanting a lot of space. - wolfa

Of course there is, one is a local example and the other is what it would eventually become when applied to a situation in reality if this view was accepted there (China). Let's take the example with the woman keeping her distance from you on a dark street or cross the street to avoid you.

You're the danger to her so she moves away, a country would simply try to keep track of these potential threats in order to keep them away from regular citizens. We already have this going on with pedophiles and other assorted criminals, though the example doesn't apply to them because they're guilty of committing a crime. The guy walking down the street is guilty of being... male. As are the guys in the China example.

What I'm trying to get at is that the wary attitude towards people will allow discrimnation to go relatively unchecked because of it's basis on threat assessment from societally biased individuals.

In this sense, I think it is actually quite accurate to say that we are culturally "born" with tendencies toward sexism and racism and homophobia, and that's something all of us should struggle against and realize that others rightfully suspect us b/c of it. - Indecisive

Born as in when we become self-aware, maybe? Wouldn't that mean everyone in said society is guilty of at least some base level of sexism, racism or homophobia? This gives everyone a "right to suspect others", if I'm reading this right.

African Americans - "right to suspect caucasians"
Women - "right to suspect men"
French - "right to suspect Germans"

and so on. This right seems like nothing more than a means to sneak by discrimination on the basis of the society's failings in preventing these forms of hate from appearing in the children of the powerful.

"men should accept that in a sexist society it is reasonable for Joanna Random Woman to suspect John Random Male of sexism unless he demonstrates otherwise" (which I think is common sense). - Jeremy

So women should accept that in a sexist society, they're expected to not work outside the home, have as many children as hubby wants and lose your identity when you marry? AFAIK, women have not, and rightly will not accept the above tripe. Like wise, men shouldn't accept what another member of society suspects of him and prove it otherwise. This member, of course, being just as imbibed with the same ills as the other.

Yes, but to a *lesser* extent. No-one argued that a *potential* threat grants anyone the right to do anything they like (which makes most of the rest of your post a straw man). - Jeremy

While you can't do as you like, physically, you can however indulge in prejudices that society largely frowns upon. These don't even need to be actions, but the thought (again) is what ultimately influences your interaction with others. And sure enough, your thoughts will take form in your actions, a slipped word or two.

I just said that you can't demand someone else to treat you as harmless. Obviously it would be out of order for a passerby to Mace me just in case I was planning to assault her. - Jeremy

An extreme example of this point would be, like you posted, someone macing you preemptively.

And that about wraps it up for me today, not to mention we're well off-topic.

[Sara]

Hugo, I was more curious about whether or not it actually is the case that there are more "pro-feminists" than male "feminists." Is there any way to know? I mean, it's sort of self-selecting if you lean toward the opinion that a guy doesn't take feminism seriously if he doesn't call himself a pro-feminist. Or, for that matter, if you belong to a group that makes a point of calling itself pro-feminist.

[Hugo]

Rex and Jeremy, I'm going to try and address the points you make in a separate post sometime soon.

Sara, I have no way of knowing how many feminist men as opposed to pro-feminist men there are out there. I do know that I'm less interested in fighting about nomenclature than about building community. I sense, and this is entirely anecdotal, that it is older men who've been in the movement a while who prefer "pro-feminist", while some of the younger dudes are quite happy calling themselves feminists. I also sense -- anecdotally -- that younger women in the movement are less troubled by fellas calling themselves feminists than were some of their older sisters twenty years ago when I first came on to the scene.

[Stentor]

You're giving up bold, one of the trademark Schwyzerisms? What's next -- giving up calling people "fellas" and pointing out how people accuse you of being gay?

[Hugo]

Okay, that's it. The bold stays.

[rejiquar]

I agree with the poster above, individual writing styles are to be treasured, and thus agree the bold is a hallmark of your writing. But I admit that I find it more effective when used sparingly. Otherwise I tend to jump forward in the post, and repressing that tendancy can get distracting.

Perhaps others are having the same problem, and that is why they're complaining?

[wolfa]

Yes, that's it. I'm actually covertly saying we implant chips in all men. I might seem to be saying that it's not wrong to walk on the other side of the street from a stranger, but I guess I'm tricky like that.

This isn't even a (bad) slippery slope argument -- there's no relationship between the two things.

[Rex]

Yes, that's it. I'm actually covertly saying we implant chips in all men. I might seem to be saying that it's not wrong to walk on the other side of the street from a stranger, but I guess I'm tricky like that. - wolfa

No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with walking on the other side of the street if there's a stranger, or not, on the other side. However, when you toss in the sentiment hugo expressed in the OP, it turns into all kinds of wrong.

[Jeremy Henty]

Having slept on things since my last comment I'd like to apologise for the unnecessary rudeness in my reply to Rex. Sorry.

I still think it's quite an insult to lots of people to glibly declare that most of them are just trying to get by, particularly in a blog dedicated to the proposition that in many ways "just getting by" is not good enough and we men should be trying to do better.

[Jeremy Henty]

Stentor >> What's next -- giving up calling people "fellas" and pointing out how people accuse you of being gay?

Hugo > The bold stays.

Hugo, only nancy-boys use bold. Real men express themselves in the stern, bluff, unyielding lines of sans-serif.

[Hugo]

Hugo, only nancy-boys use bold. Real men express themselves in the stern, bluff, unyielding lines of sans-serif.

Oh.

*sniffling*

[Toy Soldier]

It does mean that we have to recognize that one of the features of a sexist culture is that it gives men permission to evaluate women without their consent.

Would it also not be a sign of sexism within the feminist movement that gives women permission to evaluate men without their consent? More so, why are we, male or female, required to ask for permission to evaluate anyone?

[Rex]

Having slept on things since my last comment I'd like to apologise for the unnecessary rudeness in my reply to Rex. Sorry. - Jeremy

Oh, don't worry about it. I've seen far worse online for me to get worked up over something like that, especially when the discussion's late at night. Amazing how much sleep, or lack of it, affects our entire being and how we perceive the world.

I still think it's quite an insult to lots of people to glibly declare that most of them are just trying to get by, particularly in a blog dedicated to the proposition that in many ways "just getting by" is not good enough and we men should be trying to do better. - Jeremy

I apologize for that, that wasn't what I try to get at, but now I see why you took it that way. It's true that men should be far more active in countering the sexism latent in our culture as well as challeging men. But issue I have with this, is that it's infantilizing. They're grown men, and surely they have women in their lives who they don't wish to be harmed, belittled, discriminated against or abused. I lead by example, living a pro-feminist, pro-woman life not only to resist society's to meet the pathetically low standards set for men. But to provide an example for my sons, my young and old co-workers at work, that there's another way to be a man. That the bullshit you here about pro-feminist men being henpecked eunuchs is just that, bull. That there are multiple kinds of strength, all of which are worth training.

Given how one-track masculinity is, especially to poor young men, this is unbeliveably valuable. So I take my statement back about "getting by" seeing as how the above is anything but.