There is no wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman. ~ Margaret Fuller, Woman in the 19th Century.
Some years ago, while delivering a lecture on the women’s movement to one of my classes at Old Dominion University, I paused to ask my students whether any of them regarded themselves as feminists. Not a single one raised a hand. Curious to know why, I called on one student at random.
“Because I don’t hate men,” she said.
I proceeded to argue that she misunderstood the spirit of the woman’s movement. Feminism, I explained, is about liberation of women from institutional sexism—the freedom to walk through life without fear of sexual harassment; the right to participate fully in the political process; the struggle to gain access to career paths of all kinds—and most fundamentally, the ability of women to fully develop and express their individual potentials. In short, it is simply a matter of civil and human rights.
The struggle is ongoing, as sexism in America remains pervasive. That we have yet to elect a woman as head of state—unlike 67 other countries—is but one of many testaments to this fact. Given that it’s been nearly a century since women gained the right to vote, you’d think we would have made more progress by now.
The radical rightward shift in America’s political landscape is partly to blame. But I think some so-called feminists are to blame as well.
A case in point: Not long ago, I was discussing sexism with an acquaintance who has regarded herself as a feminist since the age of 19. In the course of our conversation, she argued that it’s outrageous that women are still expected to take the last names of their husbands.
“And the first names, too!” I commented in agreement. Indeed, I can think of no clearer example of persistent sexism than the fact that in many cases formal invitations are still addressed to “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” I added that my ex-wife never took my last name, and that I was in philosophical agreement with this decision.
My children do have my last name, I went on to tell her. I freely acknowledged that in making this decision their mom and I were helping to carry on a sexist tradition. “But that was a quarter century ago,” I added. “There’s nothing I can do about it now.” Anyway, the point is, I told her, I have grown more and more conscious of the importance of feminism over time.
“Oh, please!” she shot back. “You gave your kids your name, and that makes you part of the oppressive patriarchy.”
This struck me as a rather rigid stance—and quite unproductive. While I’m acutely aware that as a white man I enjoy all sorts of privileges by accident of birth, the woman’s movement is not well served if it devolves into an us-versus-them mentality. Our only hope for social progress lies in our willingness to listen to one another in ongoing and open-minded dialogue.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the hostility expressed by this woman was an aberration. Recent comments by Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright reinforce this impression.
Let’s start with Steinem. As you probably recall, when recently asked about young women who support Bernie Sanders, the iconic feminist remarked that they were probably doing so simply because they “want to meet boys.”
Nothing, to my mind, could be more contrary to feminism. In essence, she was implying that young women are too dumb—or too naïve, at any rate—to make sound decisions about politics. They should just shut up and follow the lead of their elders.
A day or two later, as if Steinem’s remarks weren’t bad enough, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright said that there is “a special place in hell for women who do not support other women.”
Talk about us versus them!
The good news is that most younger feminists, I know were having none of this. Unlike the old guard, their understanding of feminism is broader, more inclusive and more fluid.
It’s gratifying to hear them talk about their views because they reflect my own. I have long argued that while the women’s movement remains important, it is but one piece of a broader fight for social liberation. The ultimate goal, it seems to me, should not be limited to women’s liberation but should move toward gender liberation.
I chose the epigraph from Margaret Fuller’s classic Woman in the 19th Century with this in mind. It is astonishing to me that back in 1845 she saw beyond women’s liberation, per se, by observing that masculinity and femininity are “perpetually passing into one another.”
The truth of her observation should be self-evident. I, and most men I know, have qualities that are typically regarded as feminine, just as women have qualities that have traditionally been associated with masculinity. For one male friend of mine, for example, being a nurturing parent seems to come more naturally than it does to his wife. And he’s liberated enough to embrace that quality.
The trouble is, many men are not. As Michael Kimmel notes in his wonderful book Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, many young men he interviewed admitted that they were inclined to hide aspects of their true selves in order to fit in with “bro” culture. The consequences of this tendency do not serve them any more than they do the women in their lives, for excessive conformity inevitably stunts growth.
The promising light on the horizon, as I noted earlier, is that attitudes seem to be shifting, albeit slowly. Many younger social activists I know, no longer see the women’s movement in a vacuum. For them, the struggle for civil rights is all of a piece—thus feminism is inextricably linked with the ongoing fight for racial equality and LGBT rights.
Indeed, I think one of the most positive signs in our society in recent years has been an increasing acceptance of the transgender community among young people. This stands in sharp contrast to the views of some older feminists—notably Germaine Greer—who has expressed vicious hostility toward transgender women. “Just because you lop off your dick and then wear a dress,” she said, “doesn’t make you a fucking woman.”
My inclination is not so much to respond, “Yes it does!” so much as, “Whatever!”
Our only hope for social evolution lies in our willingness to accept people for who they are, and to respect the ways in which they choose to identify themselves—especially people who don’t fit into neat identity boxes. Then, and only then, will have it in our power to create a society in which everyone feels free—and has the opportunities—to realize their full potential and to fully and openly express who they are.
