While David J. Kahane’s article Male Feminism as Oxymoron did not say that men couldn’t be feminists, it labeled the identity of male feminist as “rife with contradictions” (Kahane 231). So while male feminism may be a little bit oxymoronic, hope remains. I think that male feminists do exist, and they exist in more shades than Kahane lies out in his epistemological article. Kahane himself notes four types of male feminists, but I would like to elaborate on one type I constructed myself while reading this article: the conversationalist.Most men I know would fall into this category. The conversationalist is open to being enlightened about feminism and oppression, but does not seek out this information on his own accord. While it is interesting and engaging for him to discuss such matters, and he often does so open-mindedly, he does not have a full understanding of the gravity of the situation, a point that Kahane made well in his article. The conversationalist might get involved in an activist feminist movement, but only if it were easy to do. The conversationalist would also recognize the basic dynamics of a feminist problem, but not the deeper elements of that same problem. As Kahane writes, the conversationalist would be happy to enjoy the rewards that come from shallow feminism. In this case, the rewards could include an inward pat on the back and outward appreciation from his feminist friends and girlfriends.Another main point I want to make is that men ought not to be eliminated from feminism, and I think that Kahane, though male, risks alienating men out of feminist discussion and activism altogether. This would be a horrible occurrence, because as Michael S. Kimmel writes in his article Who’s Afraid of Men Doing Feminism?, “Profeminist men are…necessary but not sufficient elements in feminism’s eventual success” (Kimmel 68). Besides, I am a standpoint epistemologist. I believe that all standpoints ought to be taken into account and combined when one is trying to reach an objective reality. This includes the standpoint of the feminist, both female and male, as well as the non-feminist, both male and female. In my opinion, males ought to be welcomed into the world of feminism. How are men and women going to change any sex-based discrimination if we don’t ally together into a larger force? Before reading these articles and others in the genres of feminist epistemology and male views on feminism, I never realized the full breadth of concerns regarding the notion of male feminists. There are livid arguments against feminist males, put forth by groups such as “the angry-white-men-in-training” and the patriarchy-baiter (Kimmel 59 and 60). Being a feminist does not make anyone “less of a real man,” nor does it make anyone a femi-Nazi (Kimmel 60). These are common misconceptions, however. I think that some men, probably more than would like to admit, and men who are not of the “angry-white-men-in-training” variety, still covertly think that the act of calling themselves a feminist or standing up for women in anti-feminist contexts would make them look wussy or like less of a man. How do we change this? I don’t think Kahane or Kimmel gave a response to this question, and unfortunately, right now I cannot think of an adequate response, either.
On a different note, I find it interesting that Kimmel thinks that “For men to support feminism…means acknowledging men’s experience of powerlessness…while placing it within a context of men’s aggregate power” (Kimmel 64). I didn’t understand Kimmel’s point that men live in “a place of entitlement unfulfilled,” and because of this he claims that when presented with feminism, men feel “like they will be forced to give up their sense of entitlement [without fulfilling it]” (Kimmel 65). I would like to collect male perspectives on this subject to see if this is an accurate assessment of the situation.
I believe that everyone ought to be a feminist. To me, believing in feminism means believing that when it comes to the sexes, they are equally matched and accordingly, deserve equal rights. I mean this in the sense that man and woman ought to be given equal opportunities in every sphere.
Additionally, I believe that we ought to address “women’s issues” as well as “men’s issues.” Women’s issues rightfully deserve more time, because women are not in charge nor are they entitled, and because there are more patriarchal societal problems that are aimed at women than men. Kimmel and Kahane name a few of them: sexual harassment, date rape, sexist comments, and the list of problems continues. However, men's issues are often overlooked in our society due to their pure nature: many of the issues themselves have as their deepest components the overlooking of such notions as emotions and the power-without-fulfillment paradox.
I would like to congratulate both Kahane and Kimmel for writing well-thought out and impassioned articles on this subject. It makes me want to rejoice that some men care this much about these very important issues. I loved Kahane’s idea of “a flyer headed, ‘So You’re a Male Feminist Professor?’ followed by a checklist” (Kahane 230). Additionally, I thought his four types of male feminist knowledge were very astutely observed.
As for Kimmel, I appreciated his idea of forming an organization that encouraged male support of feminism. His group would be entitled, "the Gentleman's Auxiliary of Feminism" (Kimmel 67). It reminded me of a Facebook group that I once saw entitled, "Straight But Not Narrow." The description of the group is as follows: "For all you guys out there who don't think that having and acknowledging emotions makes you a pussy, who can hug another guy without thinking it gay, and who support feminism because women really do deserve all the same rights as men." Unfortunately, currently that same group only has 5 members, and 3 of them are female.
