Wow, just did a bit of research on male feminism, and the discussion happening in
these comments on Feministing.com is really fascinating, because it's like every possible angle and argument is covered.
That's quite a bit of food for thought (haha, missed a pun opportunity there). For Zaich and the other ladies here, I hope I and some others here didn't seem to be "invading" the cause of gender equality (intentionally or unintentionally) or speaking for you and other women; that is a most valid concern and that is most certainly not the intent. Rather, people of all genders, races, and social positions should take an interest in what the elimination of patriarchy means for them and the repercussions societal progression will have for their particular, unique cases.
Why should men be vocal on feminist issues and gender equality? Precisely to welcome fellow men into the progression of humanism and morality, and avoid warped responses to the feminist cause like the one posted by
this frustrated feminist. There's always going to be a ton of friction within the feminist community, as with any human community; there's already friction between white feminists and black feminists; between black feminists and Asian feminists; between Western feminists and third world feminists; between heterosexual feminists and homosexual feminists; so there's sure as heck going to be some friction when men want to join in too and expand the community.
Perhaps the greatest expressions of feminism amongst men are the kind that are done on the quiet and subliminally, so as not to draw attention to the feminist's particular gender, racial, or cultural identity and therefore stir up discord within a movement that desperately needs solidarity (IMHO). That's why James Cameron is my personal hero. He doesn't run around at feminist rallies with a megaphone or hold up one end of a "Fuck Sexism" banner at the head of feminist marches; he writes and directs movies like
Aliens and
Titanic that just get the message across to millions of viewers, without him or his white maleness anywhere visibly onscreen.
So, those of us who are vocal on women's issues and happen to be men automatically incur some cost to our credibility on the mere basis of our gender. Such is life; if any of this post's readers is a man and flirting with the idea of identifying as a feminist, don't let some of the attitudes within even the feminist community dissuade you or make you feel devalued. Barack Obama is able to combat partriarchalism and androcentrism just as well as Hillary Clinton could have, to the benefit of our society as a whole. Now let's gear up and bust down some sexist mores!
EDIT:
What if he didn't treat you differently because you were a woman, BUT he treated you differently because he liked you and was attempting to show affection through action? Likewise, what if he didn't pay for dinner because you’re a woman and wouldn't have a job to provide funds to pay for yourself, but rather he paid because the very idea of spending a meal with you makes it seem like he's rich?
The reason behind the action is often more important than the action. I hold doors for both men and women as a sign that I acknowledge their existence. Someone else might hold doors for women not to respect them but because that person perceives women as individuals incapable of properly caring for themselves. We both hold doors for women, but I'd argue that one is undesirably sexist and the other is not.
Pretty awesome stuff all around Thought. I find the idea of "acknowledging the other's existence" really interesting; sometimes in this fast-paced, high-stress society we focus so much on our own issues, deadlines, schedules, etc., that we rush around from one place to another without really communicating with the people around us in any meaningful way. A couple days ago a fellow grad student walked up to me in class for no other purpose than to just say hi; and I was like, "whoa...that's different." But why should it be weird? Maybe we should all take time out to go out on a limb and do something crazy like that. I've always viewed opening doors for people, saying "bless you" when someone sneezes (even though it's medically nonsensical...I think?) as ways of establishing a human connection on-the-cheap and in a more socially acceptable way.
I am not a practicing Catholic these days...more out of apathy and laziness then some sort of religious or anti-religious epiphany.
Hahaa, there's so many of us "derelict" Catholics that the religion is seemingly becoming synonymous with it. It's probably a sign that the religion needs to get with the times far quicker than its current organization allows, and extirpate the chaff from the wheat. The Catholic Church is not likely to survive in the developed West, at least, if it tries to wait for Vatican IV, V, and VI. Change needs to flow continuously.
There are number of canonical practices that I simply don't agree with, Confession being the primary offender in my case (with regard to what's expected of the parishioner, anyway). I mean, jeez, are we
that sinful and inhuman that we honestly need to rake ourselves over the coals in front of an old dude? But Confession could still be a psychological help for some people who need it; it could be viewed as free psychiatry if the priest sitting in that confessional is skilled enough.
But I still love Communion, and that's what's drawn me to services every now and then and made them spiritually and psychologically beneficial to me. Now, in my weird semi-anarchic interpretation of Christianity, Jesus represents the forces that question authority and reveal the fundamental inner godhood of human beings. Perhaps there is absolutely nothing to support that in the canonical interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (I've found my religious philosophy shaped far more by
Cornell West in recent years), but there's something wonderful about the symbolic act of taking in the substance of someone I interpret as a great revolutionary figure. I just can't divorce myself from such an experience, and as long as I believe in a God or something comparable to it on logical grounds, I find it best to do what I can within this limited and flawed human institution, and contribute to its moral betterment.
The notion that a specific aspect of a religion rather than the underlying teachings would either attract someone to it or keep someone interested enough to identify with it may be strange, sacreligious, and shallow all at the same time, but I can begin to understand where
Simone Weil was coming from when she began to flirt with religion on the basis of hearing Gregorian chant.
