Unfair Feminist Criticism: What It Looks Like & How To Respond (Part Two/Three)
written by Teyah Nichole
SHARE ON:
This is my second installment in my three-part series delving into the second-most common and least favorite unfair feminist criticism. (Be sure to check out part one, where I go into the reasons why I never have and will never go dutch.)
What Is “Unfair” Feminist Criticism?
In part one, I defined unfair feminist criticism as:
“Criticism rooted in thinking that feminism is a uniform doctrine that lacks nuance, variety, and multifacetedness. It is characterized by positions that find fault in a racialized woman’s feminist beliefs or views unsupported by empirical evidence and/or any actual, unselfish commitment to feminist politics or priorities as a whole.
When you’re a newbie feminist, spotting this type of behavior isn’t as easy. When you’re new to something and have less experience in the space, it’s common to need time to work around what feminism means and looks like. The more intersections you operate within (i.e. race, ethnicity, class, etc.), the more involved this process becomes.
As a way to both help my fellow newbie feminists and keep a record of where I’m at in my own feminist journey, I’ve decided to make a series about the common feminist criticisms I receive as a racialized woman and why I think they’re unfair and completely uninformed by the material realities of what racialized women go through and deal with regularly.
Hopefully, this post can be an eye-opener for those who identify as feminists but struggle with the inevitable complications that arise when putting it into practice.”
Unfair Feminist Criticism Example #2:
“Women should do more to include men in feminism! Men shouldn’t be made to feel as if they’re not included: they benefit from a more feminist world as well!”
How I Respond:
I must admit, this is the most annoying criticism I get as a racialized woman and self-identifying feminist. I feel this way because I think it’s the most tone-deaf and definitive of the issues with the marketing of mainstream feminism. The feminist criticism that men need to feel more included in feminism honestly baffles me as it’s one I’ve received from both the ludicrous “Men’s Rights” advocates and leftist/progressive circles alike.
There is a shared perception that the word feminism isn’t inclusive enough for cishet men. Perhaps, there should be a push to find a more “updated” word to define approaches to gender inequity that is more appealing to a broader audience. This is ridiculous for several reasons.
For starters, feminism is called feminism for a reason. Feminism is a word that describes political, social, and economic work whose legacy is defined by trying to improve the well-being and quality of life of women. The emphasis on women here cannot be understated, as women collectively experience more inequalities and dangers than men. Women, on average, experience more harassment, abuse, rape, and other forms of violence than men.
Although feminism benefits people of all genders, it’s at its heart about the oppression of women by men and structures of patriarchy. This understanding is what separates feminism from other notions touted as possible replacements for the infamous “f” word like “equalism”, “humanism”, etc. Within feminism, there is a crucial focus on issues that solely impact women-identifying people that simply doesn’t exist within other forms of anti-oppressive work/legacies/words.
The second reason why the feminist criticism that men need to feel more included in feminism is unfair is that there is an apparent disregard for the benefits both women and men have gained from feminism’s woman-focused approach. One of the most notable examples of this in America can be seen in the work of second-wave feminists focusing on equal access to pay, estates, and social security.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s (may she rest in peace) landmark 1975 case Weinberger vs Wiesenfeld was a woman-issue focused case whose outcome had extraordinary benefits for men. The case was started by widower Stephen Wiesenfeld, a man left alone to care for his newborn baby after his wife died in childbirth. He sued the US government as the Social Security Act did not benefit widowed men.
RBG’s arguments were based on the idea that women’s work was devalued as men were not given the same opportunities to participate in child-rearing as women. Alongside, she argued that Stephen Wiesenfeld’s deceased wife, Paula Polatschek, was not being equally valued as other salaried men who left widows as her past contributions to Social Security were not being taken into equal consideration.
This case received unanimous votes from the Supreme Court in favor of Wiesenfeld, making all widowed men able to access social security benefits the same as widowed women. The Weisenfeld situation is just one example of how focusing on highlighting the ways women’s contributions to society are just as, if not sometimes more, important as men’s contributions often results in benefits for both men and women.
“Such an assumption is inherently sexist, as it posits that men, the collective oppressor of women and primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, and their feelings toward female and gender-oppressed people’s liberalization should be held in equal regard to those of females and gender-oppressed people.”
However, this fact doesn’t get to the heart of the issue of this criticism for me, leading me to my third and perhaps most fundamental problem with this type of unfair feminist criticism. There is an underlying, unscrutinized assumption that men can and/or should only be motivated to get involved in sex/gender-based discrimination if convinced there are immediate and apparent benefits for themselves.
Such an assumption is inherently sexist, as it posits that men, the collective oppressor of women and primary beneficiaries of patriarchy, and their feelings toward female and gender-oppressed people’s liberalization should be held in equal regard to those of females and gender-oppressed people. Obviously, they shouldn’t be.
Whether it’s woman, race, or gender-focused, anti-oppression work can and should never be focused on making the oppressors feel comfortable and included. That is not to say those representing the oppressor but wanting to navigate spaces with the oppressed shouldn’t be a thing; allies are always welcome and are often necessary. However, allies cannot be the primary focus, and they should know their place and what those who share their intersections represent to the movement as a whole.
Interestingly, these sentiments have become more commonplace in discussions toward anti-racism work, as seen during the uptick in interest during 2020 of white people wanting to get involved in the #BLACKLIVESMATTER movement. Conversations detailing concepts of “white fragility” and “how to be a better ally” were widespread across social media platforms.
Yet, these sentiments routinely fail to come across in conversations about feminism. I partly blame the legacies of the mainstream, white/liberal feminists. I mean, who can forget Emma Watson’s famous HEFORSHE speech to the UN in 2014, where she reminded men that “gender equality is your issue too”. Her attempts to call upon men to take action and make feminism more palatable fell short.
Although unintentional, Emma Watson used her mainstream, mostly white-following platform to make feminism appear as a digestible, pretty thing men could participate in. This is especially unfortunate as Emma Watson admitted in an interview with Reni Eddo-Lodge on her Youtube channel that she didn’t consider issues like race in her feminism until years after her speech was given.
Emma has since then changed her stances and has made a lot of improvements to her feminism and her approach to using her platform for meaningful conversations about gender equality (and I, of course, applaud her and the great work she continues to do). She’s also not the only white feminist who’s been on this path, as countless mainstream speakers and writers have fallen into this trap of wanting to make feminism sexier for men (i.e. Maria Jesus Orihuela Bolaino’s “mentalkfeminism” campaign or Anya Overman’s assertions in “Why Men Need Feminism Too).
Regardless, the damage has been done. Emma’s HEFORSHE speech and associated campaign were seen by millions and many people’s first and only engagement with feminism, making the campaign’s assumptions essentially definitive of mainstream feminism. This is unfortunate as mainstream feminism then becomes a job for women, thus unnecessarily burdening them to help men, instead of a push acknowledging men’s need to make more regularly space for feminism and women’s rights.
“The need for ‘men to feel included’ cannot be separated from the legacies of defining women wanting equal rights as ‘angry, men-hating, bitches’”
It also indirectly contributes to the tone-policing primarily responsible for the negative stereotypes women feminists face in our patriarchal society. The need for “men to feel included” cannot be separated from the legacies of defining women wanting equal rights as “angry, men-hating, bitches”. This is because it’s rooted in a desire to sugarcoat the gritty, visceral nature of feminism and feminist work as something approachable that gets a “bad rep” instead of acknowledging the ugly truth of men’s collective and continued disregard for women’s rights.
Men don’t feel “included” in feminism because men have a collective interest in maintaining patriarchal structures. Thus, they historically have been, and continue to be, unwilling to use their privilege to improve the materiality realities of women across intersections (i.e. class, race, ethnicity, etc.). Men not being able to show emotion, for example, isn’t rooted in disrespect for men. It’s rooted in a disdain for women as women are associated with this trait, and men are therefore punished for being similar to women. If women weren’t deemed as lesser-than, men would be free from the chains of forced emotional unintelligence.
Men will benefit by focusing on making women and traditionally women’s associated traits equally valued and not discriminated upon. This is because woman-focused feminism works, and it is not the job of feminist women to make men feel included. Instead, it’s the job of male allies to teach other men how to navigate the unavoidable discomfort that recognizing male privilege brings and ways men can be better, more proactive supporters of women-focused initiatives, agendas, and movements.
What did you think of this post? Were there any issues with this criticism I left out that you think should be included? Let me know in the comments below!
