Caitlin Moran is a powerful writer to have on the side of the feminism - she writes accessibly, entertainingly, and with frequent references to masturbation - plus her platform for airing her views is a national one. 90% of the time I find myself nodding in agreement with what she says and the other 10% making that noise that Tina in Bob’s Burgers makes. I won’t go and list past moments of stomach-clenchery because actually most of them aren’t relevant to the issue at hand; today I’m specifically addressing her article for Esquire published on International Women’s Day, “12 Things About Being a Woman That Women Won’t Tell You”.
There has been a huge drive recently to make feminism accessible to men, which is basically A Good Thing. There are so many myths and misconceptions and straw feminists floating around on the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is the internet, that sometimes we need a little accessibility - sometimes you need to invite people in. But there’s a difference between opening the door and standing there clicking your fingers and cooing as though trying to coax an errant pet in from the cold.
The first six paragraphs of Moran’s article are dedicated to reassuring her male readers that she knows they’re all in favour in equality, that they’re big, clever boys who can tie their own gender pay gap and everything. She states that they’re basically all fine because they don’t hang off the back of buses shouting at girls or honk women’s boobs with wanton abandon. But doesn’t that essentially amount to saying that a man is a supporter of gender equality by doing the absolute bare minimum of not actively behaving like a prick? Moran frames her article as being “extra”, homework for the advanced class, and she knows they can all handle it because they’re “sophisticated, 21st century men”.
“You like women being equal to men,” she writes, “which is all that feminism means. Not all the penises being burned in a Penis Bonfire. Just women being equal to men.” Absolutely that’s what feminism means - but part of its process also means women sometimes needing space to vent about systems that privilege men, and sometimes men find that uncomfortable to hear (in fact, having space to vent is also not the Penis Bonfire but sometimes the two seem to get confused). Moran completely makes the point that when women complain about “Men” or “The Man”, what they are complaining about is the patriarchy, and this where a lot of Feminism For Men starts from, showing men the necessary distinction between an individual and a system:
One man = an individual, capable of acting with great grace or courage or compassion or selfishness or thoughtlessness or outright evil.
The patriarchy = a deeply rooted system of thoughts, behaviours and ideas that benefit and centralise men, in operation in most walks of life.
In other words, you may behave a certain way because of the patriarchy, but you are not the patriarchy. Thus, when feminists attack patriarchy, they are not attacking you.
Cool.
But. But. I worry that a consequence of re-branding feminism in a way that specifically appeals to men, even flatters them, will mean less space to vent. To just be angry. We’re so afraid of being angry now - those straw feminists on the internet have seen to that. And that’s just another form of being silenced, of not speaking out, only this time inside a space and a community that is specifically designed to give women a voice. The real, unpalatable truth is that if you are a man who is going to engage with feminism or feminist issues, you are going to hear some things that make you uncomfortable. It can’t be all about how cool you are for supporting feminism, even though you are very cool (see? I felt the need to add that last bit. I’m doing it too).
Moran writes, “We’re embarrassed when other women say, "Men can't be feminists!" We don't want to get into an argument, but we just can't see the logic in it.” I am not “embarrassed” by anything “other women” do. There’s enough judging of women’s choices going on in the world. I may not agree - anyone, of any gender, is welcome to call themselves a feminist. (In fact, please do! The more the merrier!) But if I were to talk to a feminist who firmly believes that men should refer to themselves as ‘allies’ rather than ‘feminists’, well, then fine. I’m not embarrassed by that at all - in fact, I see her point. And if a man spoke to her, my hope for that man would be that he would see her side of things and respect that, even if he too disagreed.
There’s another underlying assumption to this approach that is faintly patronising: not only that that men will only engage with feminism when being flattered but also when it directly impacts and/or benefits them. International Women’s Day also saw the #HeForShe campaign releasing its latest hashtag #ILoveMenButHatePatriarchy. Like #HeForShe, Moran also roots her piece in her male readers’ female nearest and dearest - “you’ve got sisters, mothers, lovers - female friends and colleagues”.
But what if they don’t? Isn’t it harder, more complicated than that? What if they never or rarely interact with women? What if a feminist doesn’t love men or patriarchy? Does the whole idea break down? Does feminism become worthless because there isn’t always an immediately obvious central position for men within it?
What if men aren’t actually central to feminism?
What if feminism is about women?
The end of result of feminism is a gender equality that benefits everyone, and without a shadow of a doubt issues that affect men are feminist issues, but feminism advocates getting there by aiming to redress a balance that historically and presently has women at a disadvantage. One of the beautiful, frustrating, foolish, optimistic, hopeful things about feminism is that it asks men to put women at the centre of a narrative, to put their name to a cause that has women at its centre - simply because it is the right thing to do.
If you have a problem with that, or would prefer to use the term “Equalist” or “Egalitarian”, maybe it’s time to ask yourself why. Do you really believe that men and women are starting from an equal playing field? That they face equal amounts of persecution, oppression, and discrimination on every level, from the systemic to the everyday? And I mean all women everywhere, not just women in Western or developed countries, because equality can only have been achieved when it is achieved for everyone.
So if I have an appeal to a specifically male audience, it is one that I want to say loudly, once, and then leave you to it. Here it is: take a deep breath and support your feminist sisters and allies because it is the right thing to do, and because one day it will result in a world with less fear, less violence, more love, and more freedom.
It’s an almost impossible world to imagine, because it requires work from all of us - the work of constantly challenging of our biases, conscious and unconscious. A world of true gender equality means re-making the way we look at gender, and no-one ever said that was easy or simple. Germaine Greer - whatever you think of her now - put it brilliantly in 1971. When asked to describe what a sexual encounter between a man and a women might look like in a world where equality had been achieved, she replied, “You ask me to describe a state of affairs which doesn't exist, it's a perfectly unreasonable demand. What makes you suppose that liberation has happened?”
