Erin Lane: Feminism is about men, too
Feminism does not support women. Feminism supports humanity. And humanity, rather obviously, includes men.
I've been lobbying for a feminist facelift for some time now. The word itself betrays the significance of its goal to celebrate all genders' full humanity. I've touted around the clunky "genderism" or the cloying "femenism" to illustrate its capacity to hold both women and men in its mission. My linguistic gymnastics have yet to cartwheel themselves into mainstream usage. Many Christians are thus left to take a simplistic approach to feminism as a "women's issue" that has waning utility in the mainline church where women now enjoy most of the same access as men.
A recent event at Duke University illustrates my point well. "Should I Love Feminism?" asked the clever advertisement for a panel on feminist theology. It was an intentional strategy on the part of the sponsoring Women's Center. Without the perspective of powerhouse academics, the panel could have easily been dismissed as the worn-out, haggardly arguments of a sub-field of academia becoming less popular with every click of the remote to watch the Bachelor or Bridalplasty. Feminism has been declared dead more than once in the last three decades.
Opening remarks from the public were littered with praise for the men who offered their support to women on campus. The implicit message was that this was the sideline role of men in the feminist movement: chivalrous cheerleaders. Applause is rightly given to those who make genuine moves toward reconciling gender disparity. Applause, however, is not incentive enough for leaders to charge brazenly into the future of feminist reformation. Something more intrinsic than one's affection for mothers, wives, and daughters must be named. Without a clear stake in one's sense of self or one's sense of the divine, leaders who are merely "in support" of women and "their issues" risk becoming the paternalistic figures of benevolence feminists have long critiqued.
Many Christian leaders whom I have encountered over the years are still operating on the assumption that the goal of feminism is women's equality. While this is indeed historically true -- the movement was first organized at the end of the 19th century to obtain women's right to vote and heightened during the civil rights era of the 1960's and 70's -- it is not the whole truth.
The whole truth is that the feminism is about recognizing the humanity of all gendered persons, women among them. The cultural context of the last twenty years has shifted western feminism's focus to a more nuanced, complex, and diverse approach to gender transformation. As with the "post-ing" of modernism, the post-feminist corpus has complicated the perceived solidarity of its predecessor. While this makes it harder to organize for social change, it does expand the subject for whom feminism is concerned to the overwhelming breadth of men, women, and those who eschew binary categorizations.
To me, it still feels as if Christian leaders are operating on the tired notion of feminism as a historically-specific secular movement rather than a theological lens of liberation.
It's safe to tout the arguably uncontestable idea that women should be honored in the classroom, in the workplace, and in the home. But I wish there could be a larger critique of the way that men's bodies have been regulated in the rhetoric of masculinity, how their socialization has inhibited their expression of vulnerability, how their full humanity has been distorted by the power regimes of which they are a part. I want to stand up, point my finger at Christian leaders, especially the men, and say, "This affects you, too." It affects us all. In much of the western world where women have gained the basic rights of citizenship, it is critical for leaders to recognize that in many ways it is now men who are failing to live up to their full humanity. Look at our soldiers, our prisoners, our politicians. What is the cost of their masculinity?
A Christian feminist theology reflects the heart of Jesus. It is undoubtedly a heart that gives special attention or "support" to society's marginalized. These are not only women. Feminism is not an additive to the Christian narrative. Christianity is inherently feminist in so much as it unequivocally affirms the humanity of both men and women in the image of God. As Christian leaders, our stake in feminism must be named as nothing less than the Cross, nothing less than abundant life.
Erin Lane is a student at Duke Divinity School.
As an aspiring male
As an aspiring male "femenist"/"genderist" (and a DDS grad) I want to give a hearty "amen!" to this. I'm still (and probably always will be) learning to recognize and seek healing/correction of all the ways my life has been deformed by anti-Gospel powers of male domination and supremacy, not to mention all the ways my own life has perpetuated these powers to the detriment of others (men and women). In addition to this post, I've found Dorothee Soelle's essay "On the Oppression of Men" helpful for thinking about these things. Thanks!
Tradition and transformation
Jeremy - I love that you said you are an aspiring femenest. I am aspiring, too, to be a femenist and Christian who holds tradition and transformation side-by-side. A great body of work has come before us. I only hope we can continue to be flexible in applying it and expanding it to our local contexts.
Gloria Steinem said this! (kinda) Check this out
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/wlm/aims/
Here is a link to Gloria Steinem's 1970 article "Women's Liberation Aims to Free Men Too." Maybe some of the parallels she makes aren't perfect, but it's interesting to note that we're still trying to say the same thing. Thanks Erin.
Is feminism *really* about men?
I happily grant that contemporary feminist theory is about the reality of gender. But in practice, the female gender identity is given a pride-of-place in the way it is considered within feminism.
The Gloria Steinem piece is a perfect example of the imbalance: what feminism offers women is a better understanding of themselves; what feminism offers men is a better understanding of women.
If feminism is to genuine grow towards genderism, that kind of imbalance needs to be rectified, and feminism needs to be able to offer men a better understanding of themselves, too. And this is going to start with viewing the masculine gender identity as subject in and of itself, not just a target.
Feminism, coming from its civil rights roots, has long been focused on proving that the feminine gender identity has many of the same qualities as the masculine gender identity, and so the distinction between the two is lost. This works really well for making the case that purportedly universal truths aren't, and so oppressive laws are unfounded.
Unfortunately, this specifically sets up the feminine gender identity as the subject and the masculine gender identity as the target. While the feminine gender identity has expanded through feminism, the masculine really hasn't been helped at all by feminism. This is especially problematic now with the enshrinement of certain female traits in men as the gender of "gay male"—so much so that straight male apparently need to borrow some "queer eyes" in order to have a fashion sense. Contemporary men have been put into two boxes: gay and heterosexual, both of which carry strict social expectations. The classic proof of this is the popular portrayal of gay male couples—e.g. "Modern Family", "The Birdcage"—with one as having female qualities and one as having male qualities. As a man, there are two boxes. You can be feminine (gay) or you can be masculine (straight): pick one.
Now, those "boxes" for males (both straight and, increasingly, gay) are really a gilded cage of presumed social dominance and automatic privilege, and so complaining about the box is a bit bogus. But if feminism really wants to make itself about all gender and not just about the female gender, then it is going to have to engage in the project of revealing the truth behind those the same way it revealed the truth behind the "Feminine Mystque"-exposed early 20th century feminine box.
A major difficulty in this whole project is that the male gender identity is privileged, and so to speak of male gender identity qualities that have real-world impacts—e.g. whatever it is that makes men disproportionately incarcerated—may well sound like you're stepping on the toes of those aspiring to have the same privilege, and may well require nuancing some of the long history of work done to conflate and problemetize gender identities. This is counter to the long-inculcated sensibility of feminism, but it's a necessary bit of work to be done if feminist theory is going to reflect the reality on gender.
Now, if that work is being done—if there is a "masculinism" subset of feminism which seeks to understand those with male gender identities and to understand the problems that predominantly face males—then I haven't really seen it. It's desperately needed, and it seems to be a worthy project, and I personally support and would like to work with those in the feminist movement who seek to expand its boundaries and make male gender as much as female gender a subject of advancement and support. But I just don't see it right now, so although I grant the theory of feminism may well be universal in scope, it's just not there in practice.
At the end of the day, the work in feminism is predominantly still about women, and men are alien and secondary in the discipline. Since men are objects and not subjects of the discipline, the only appropriate role to take is chivalrous cheerleader.
Guess you already said that...
It was pointed out to me that—for whatever reason—I misread the second to last paragraph and missed the nuancing of the argument, and that the kind of thing I'm calling for is the same thing that Erin is apparently calling for in that paragraph.
So yes, it's unfortunate that these male panelists were reacting to the way that feminism is in practice, not the way that feminism should be given its theory. It would have been nice to hear someone be able to articulate how feminism is relevant to analysis of male identity (the field of "masculinities", which I also was shown since my post). I'm still very sympathetic, however, to the relationship of men as alien to feminism as encountered in the academy, because when the entire conversation is about social minorities and socially marginalized groups, the conversation isn't really about men as a group.
Potential and Practice
Robert, I appreciate the attention you've given this subject and this blog! You are right in that there is a huge divide between feminism's potential for the Christian community and its practice as a one-trick pony. I'm looking forward to seeing how men and women like yourself (and myself!) will balance the tension of difference and equality that has always proved for fascinating feminist debate.
Post new comment