29 September 2006

Feminism, eh?

I'm not sure if I claim to be a feminist. As with most things, I find claiming to be a feminist binds one with the understanding that people continually expect that self-proclaimed feminist to uphold feminist values to the extreme and without exception. This may not be fair, but it happens. The kicker is that, like those of nearly any issue, feminist values vary, passions explode, and and we start seeing focus shift from making proactive changes to beginning feminist civil wars. Some argue that men cannot be feminists. That's a touchy one. My personal tendancies to reject absolutist principles on matters force me to question the distinction between men and women in the first place, to bring up issues like gender roles and definitions of self and blah blah blah, but I'd say that someone who identifies as male and, most importantly, has accepted and conformed to most of the male roles his society has lain out for him may claim to be a feminist but probably is not such. Yeah yeah, define feminism. But let me guess, this man, opposed to violence as he may be, would NEVER hit a woman but may strike out at another man. This man nearly ALWAYS takes the side of the female when it comes to a heterosexual relationship's breakup, yet he won't let her ex call her a cunt even if she called him a dick first. Is it because we need defense? Is it because years of female oppression owe it to us to have the upper hand for once? Why can't we look at things situationally? If the goal is, in fact, equality, then why are some people so reluctant to compromise? I've compromised my ass off. I think many males feel that claiming to be a feminist exempts them from blame when they choose to exercise the upper hand that their accepted gender roles have granted them. "Here, my gentle household dove/ firey demanding bitch-dragon, why don't I act like a good little feminist boy and ALLOW you certain emotions for a limited amount of time so that you can become accustomed to my seemingly unconditional acceptance of you? Why don't I encourage you to become dependent on me so that I can feel manly when my big arms encircle you in times of contentment and feel strong when I throw you out into the cold because I'm too weak to hold you up like I spent weeks getting you to believe I would?" All this may seem like the rant of a bitter butch, but I don't identify myself as such. What is the point? I'm not sure exactly, but I question the importance given to issues like equality and gender issues if they are nothing more than labels having little to do with what their disciples choose to practice in their own, private lives.

3 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

I guess thats why its hard, are you saying then drop the labels and try to uphold the ideals? or drop it all together?
Also I think the idea that a man trying to uphold feminist ideals, who treats his companion with respect, equality, doesnt necessarily mean that he expects dependency, he might in fact expect the oposite, but does his standing up for himself then automatically become the strong armed man? or does it call for equality in the same way, as in I dont mind holding you up, can you hold up me for a while...

12:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Much of what you have to say are things that I've been thinking about for a long time. I find myself getting very emotional about it all and wonder why anyone needs to proclaim themselves a feminist? If we, as a society, are looking for equality, why don't we use the term "humanist" instead? Furthermore, why does the label "feminist" exist when labels like "african-americanist" don't? You can examine the historical background, but does that truly explain it all? It makes me wonder if feminism is a form of sexism that's been accepted by society because to be anything else has been demonized. I suppose it has to do with the individual, personal definition of feminism. If so, I ask again: why not use the label humanist instead?

I have one big problem with what you have to say: it seems as though you assume that men are the only ones in relationships that manipulate. Besides, men rely on women just as women rely on men. It is part of the human condition to rely on others. The problem comes when one party abuses that reliance and trust.

You’re correct: passions explode. When that happens, other people’s toes get stepped on.

13:57  
Blogger Alexis said...

I really don't assume that men are more likely to manipulate in a relationship (or outside of one) than women. It may have come across that way because of the example I used, but I definately agree with your point about the human condition and its abuses. Thanks, Deedo!

07:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home