A group of men associated with the IWW are soliciting submissions to this blog on the topic of “feminism for men.” It notes that an ad ran in the December 2010 issue of Industrial Worker under the title “Feminist Men in Solidarity With Women” that asked for submissions to the site. That’s an auspicious headline. The contact is JR Boyd, who’s writing at Ladypoverty is usually quite good (although I do wonder why poverty is a lady when Boyd is not.)

On Wednesday Boyd posted this. I like what femenins says it is trying to do, but I have some criticism about how it is stated in that post. I don’t quite know where else to put this, so I’m posting it here. I hope the men involved with femenins understand that I write this in solidarity with their intentions, and that my only design is to contribute something useful to the conversation.

In the post Boyd writes with the voice of a working class man who’s audience is working class men who have been radicalized against capitalism. There is an assumption that the audience understands class exploitation and class conflict. I read it as an attempt to convince men who are ready to participate in class-war that the battle is much more complicated than it appears on the surface. Anarchist men need to have this conversation. However, anarchist men can only have a conversation about feminism as men who operate within patriarchy. Because of that we must be extremely cognizant of the way in which our assumptions as men socialized by patriarchy define the way we take up this topic, and how those assumptions distort even well-meaning attempts to grapple with our place in the structures of oppression. It is easy (and feels comfortable) to advance oppressive concepts and language even when we are attempting to do the opposite. As Boyd himself correctly writes: “After all, there always exists the possibility that we are contributing to the problem, somehow, even in spite of ourselves.” I feel that this is happening in the femenins post. Here is an example.

“There is a necessary role for us within feminism; and what’s more, men have something to offer feminism that even women can’t provide. This is the perspective of someone who directly experiences patriarchy as a man, but who utilizes this awareness as a feminist.”

It is a defense of male privilege to pretend that men have a “necessary role” in feminist struggle. Feminist struggle does not need men to participate in order to function. Much worse is the claim that men bring a perspective to feminist struggle that women can’t provide. This is wrong. To build on Boyd’s metaphor of the workplace, feminism needs a man’s perspective about as much as the working class needs bourgeois leadership. Radical women don’t need radical men’s explanations about what it’s like to be a dude. It is an advancement of patriarchal roles to say that they do. What feminists can use is male allies and happily there is a developed theory and tradition within feminism for this. There is no reason to pretend like femenins is blazing new ground here, and it is a good idea to get familiar with what feminism asks men to do before we start deciding how to operate as “feminist men”.

Again, to quote from the post

“We can’t be neutral on this moving train — and identifying as “feminist” is only the first step. Active resistance means anticipating what patriarchy is trying to accomplish and directing our actions accordingly — namely, in solidarity with its intended victims.”

This is absolutely correct. As men we are socialized to take the lead from women. What feminism needs is solidarity from men, it doesn’t need our direction. Whenever men have conversations about feminism there is a danger that the focus will become the defense of implicit privileges. The conversation needs to unearth these privileges and condemn them or the initiative will itself promote patriarchy at the expense of feminist struggle.