Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Dana Goldstein has a good post outlining a strategy to convince a well meaning guy to become a feminist — or at least recognize that feminist grievances are legitimate. Her ideas are all very good — waiting times for abortions, the pay gap and the social undervaluation of domestic work all point toward societal oppression, or at least obstacles, the prevent women from living the Good Life. But would just saying that restrictions on abortion are bad, the pay gap is unfair and that women being socially coerced into undervalued domestic work is unjust be enough? Well, for some, recognition of this would make a guy a feminist, or at least a feminist ally. But in many feminist circles, that basic recognition would be necessary, but not sufficient. There would have to be not only a recognition of male privilege, but also an overarching, unceasing effort to minimize and understand the impact of that privilege.

There’s also the sticky issue of what the “patriarchy” is. Except for perhaps the Roberts Court, there isn’t some nefarious group of men that plans how to best oppress women. For a man who isn’t obviously affected patriarchal or misogynistic norms and expectations, talk of the “patriarchy” can seem conspiratorial or overblown.

Dana’s post recalls the infamous discussion at Feministe over whether men could be feminists at all. To say the least, many commenters put forward a very stringent definition of what feminism means. As Julian Sanchez put it:

The definition some of the commenters are employing seems quite stringent—so much so that I expect very many progressive-leaning women wouldn’t pass muster either. Being formally in favor of gender equality is not enough by a longshot: You have to “get it,” which means not only understanding and embracing, but internalizing in a fairly deep way a sophisticated analysis of how male privilege operates.

So there seems to be a choice – define feminism as an opposition to legal and social norms and expectations that disadvantage women and a general commitment to gender egalitarianism –and attract a wide ranging coalition of people that think institutionalized misogyny, sexism and gendered double standards are wrong. Or you can make “internalizing…a fairly deep…sophisticated analysis of how male privilege operates” or “getting it” a requirement to call oneself a feminist and alienate many men and women. You can’t have it both ways. Want more people to identify with feminism? Make identifying as a feminist simple and intuitive. Dana seems to imply the former option, and it’s certainly the better one — especially if you want to convert skeptics.

PS – This 2004 BLS report states that the male-female pay gap is 80 cents to the dollar, not 70, which Dana asserts.