Often, it seems that the statement "I believe in equal rights for women, but I'm not a
feminist"
gets derided, but if you can't be a male feminist, it seems a perfectly cromulent thing to say, perhaps even if you're a woman. I'm wondering if there's an overlap in the people who'd attack that statement, and the people who'd attack the concept of male feminists.
Basically, I was in the throes of infatuation with a blog that dealt with gender issues (how women are drawn in comics), and she went
off
on a guy who called himself a feminist, and boom! It's that radical disjointed feeling you get when you haven't yet processed that this person is a person and flawed, and you're still hoping for the impossible, that you'll agree 100% with everything they have to say, and not only do they disagree with you, they disagree with you on something you don't even understand.
I'm not going to exclude white people from the Civil Rights (race-related) movement, and I wouldn't exclude men from being feminists and fighting the fight with that title.
(Okay, we can pee standing up. It's convenient at times, but it really doesn't mean anything in the broader context of the world.)
Technically, women can also pee standing up. Just not...neatly.
Just not...neatly.
Some can. Takes some practice, and some intimate touching, but apparently it's learnable for a few physiologies.
Often, it seems that the statement "I believe in equal rights for women, but I'm not a feminist" gets derided, but if you can't be a male feminist, it seems a perfectly cromulent thing to say
Eh, I'ma disagree with that--it seems to frame feminism in a bad light. I think if you were being strict about it, in the no-male-feminists sense, he'd say "I'm a feminist ally" or "I support feminism/the feminist movement" or whatever. Much as I would say "I'm a trans* ally" but certainly not "I believe in the right to transition, but I'm not pro-trans-rights!" (rather than "I support but I'm not trans" which would be the equivalent to "I believe in equal rights, but I'm not a woman")
it seems to frame feminism in a bad light
I don't understand how. Can you explain?
Is this definition of feminism as simple as "woman who believes in equal rights for women"?
Because, honestly? I don't want to be a part of "feminism" if it doesn't include men. So I would therefore believe in equal rights for women, but not identify myself as a feminist under that definition. Bad light, enh. It's the light the definers want.
Usually people who proclaim that they are not feminists are doing it because they want to distance themselves from connotations with the movement.
Usually people who proclaim that they are not feminists are doing it because they want to distance themselves from connotations with the movement.
Yes, but if you restrictively define feminism, it becomes a perfectly valid statement, which is my point. There then becomes a connotation worth distancing yourself from.
Sure, but that's an uncommon definition, and not what most people would understand you to be saying.
I feel pretty strongly that men can definitely be feminists. I know there are some who would disagree, but I've never felt that mine is a minority view.
but that's an uncommon definition, and not what most people would understand you to be saying
But it's specifically what I'm talking about right now--I asked about the intersection of the people who place such restrictions on the definition and the people who deride that statement. I didn't pull it out with no context.