“No man, however eloquent, can speak for woman as woman can for herself. Nevertheless, I hold that this cause is not altogether and exclusively woman’s cause. It is the cause of human brotherhood as well as the cause of human sisterhood, and both must rise and fall together. Woman cannot be elevated without elevating man, and man cannot be depressed without depressing woman also.”
—Frederick Douglass, 1895
Very good quote. Perhaps it should also apply to criticism as well.
Was it Douglas though who refused to have someone teach his wife to read? I seem to remember so.
I’ve never heard that before, Echidne. It would be surprising if that were true.
According to this timeline (whose accuracy, alas, I can’t vouch for), in 1849 Douglass hired “a tutor to teach his wife, Anna, to read, but the effort is unsuccessful.”
I’d like to compile a list of reasons why men benefit from women’s liberation, and feminism. Men’s elationships with women who are better able to reach their full potential are greatly enriched. Also, the national productivity, individual household income are also greatly which generally improves the standard of living. Any additions? I know there’s tons.
Women being able to define their own lives for themselves that has a very important, and often ignored or derided, effect on men. As women are more able to define themselves as individuals rather than as a gender, men are somewhat more allowed to do the same. When the choice is made available for women to work rather than staying home with the kids, a correlary for men is automatically created in that it becomes slightly more acceptable for men to stay home with the kids rather than working.
Society fights this redefinition of masculinity with the same degree of fervor that it fights the redefinition of feminity because, really, it’s the same fight. The quest to keep women in their place assumes that they are encroaching on a male place; it also assumes that this male place is something that men wouldn’t have much interest in leaving. Every nerd boy who’s been picked on at school for not wanting to, or not being able to, play sports knows that not everyone wants society’s concept of masculinity.
I think this may be why so few “normal” men are feminists or place a priority on gender issues. Having not been on the receiving end of descrimination for the most part, many normal men, I believe, view gender issues as an abstract concept that may have some small benefits for them but that, on a whole, are issues revolving soley around women. I think this is why so many mainstream politicians make a few gestures to feminists before going back to talking about more serious things, like war and deficits and who said what on the Senate floor. I very much doubt that these men were ever picked on as boys, called pussies for not, say, wanting to play wall ball and instead wanting to read or, worse, play something more socially-oriented like house.
PDP: “As women are more able to define themselves as individuals rather than as a gender, men are somewhat more allowed to do the same.”
Wondefully put. My family has struggled with gender roles in US culture — my husband especially found it hard on his ego to stay home with our child. He felt, deep down, that he had no worth because he wasn’t “providing” for our family, no matter how much I told him I appreciated and valued his contribution to our household. Most of our friends with children expressed jealousy that we could (just barely) afford to have one parent stay home. Maybe he got different messages from his single friends, I don’t know. Getting a part-time job helped him out of his funk.
I really do believe that women’s liberation is men’s liberation as well, much like Douglas’s quote. However, it is not stressed as to why this is the case. Traditional female roles (stay-at-home parent) and jobs (nursing, teaching, etc.) have been so long demeaned (and underpaid) that I don’t find mentioning opening them to men as usefully persuasive in discussions with the unenlightened, although they are in dicussions with other feminists. That’s why I was trying to formulate some more obvious benefits to men of supporting feminism. The extra household income was the most compellingly obvious. More indirect ones, like facilitating brilliant women scientists and engineers who directly contribute to the well being of all men, were what I was hoping for. I know there’s got to be a lot of them, and I’d hope to tap the collective wisdom of this highly enlightened readership in enumerating them.
Hmm… One of the biggest things that actually drew me to feminism in the first place was a realization that my frustrations at being forced to fit into a predetermined definition of “male” was remarkably similar to the frustrations that women feel at being forced to fit into a predetermined definition of “female,” so I wouldn’t discount the argument as being worthless when dealing with all of the unwashed hordes.
Yeah, same here. I rejected the macho standards because I just wasn’t interested in cars, athletics, or whathaveyou. I was thinking of persuading people who were rewarded for meeting macho standards. I figured they’d be the hard cases.
Having not been on the receiving end of descrimination for the most part, many normal men, I believe, view gender issues as an abstract concept that may have some small benefits for them but that, on a whole, are issues revolving soley around women. I think this is why so many mainstream politicians make a few gestures to feminists before going back to talking about more serious things, like war and deficits and who said what on the Senate floor.
Sadly, it ain’t just a duopoly-politican thing, many lefty penis-people are also guilty of the same blindness—that’s what destroyed the 60’s movement, and, IMHO, may yet doom the leftist resurgence that happend after the Battle Of Seattle. It’s also why Ralph Nader will not get my vote this year—and this from a guy who’s militantly against the DemRep system!!!