Two Opposing Articles on Feminism Make the Same Mistake

What is the commonality between militant isolationist feminism, and regressive pro-masculinity movements?

Fewer isolationist feminists exist now than in the 2nd wave, but I recently stumbled on an article by a woman in Mumbai that argues that men should just get out of feminism altogether.  Men, she argues, are determined to conquer feminism and make it their own in the same way that they conquered India (and the Americas).  She gives as an example the fact that men look like "good-samaritans" when they simply call themselves feminists, while women look "cantankerous."

In a total opposite corner of the world, a man in Boulder makes the same point that men should stay out of the feminist enterprise in a badly written rant on why we should be "strict" with our women.  Oddly, the rant is posted on a wedding photographers website.  That's right, some guy in Boulder believes that such a rant will get him business.  And he's probably right.  There are enough men out there whose cowardice has them quivering in the corner over feminism that he's probably making bank even in Boulder.

They are both saying essentially the same thing.  They are both saying that men have no place in feminism.  They are both saying it for the same reason.  They are saying it because they fail to see what men have to gain from valuing traditional women's work and traditional women's roles.

They both think that men are getting together to talk about feminism and how to break free of traditional gender roles as a way of manipulating women.  The radical isolationist thinks men are doing it in order to continue patriarchy (the title of her article is "Another Patriarchy: Feminist Men").  The radical regressive thinks that men are joining feminists because they are attempting to placate their wives and partners.  But neither of them can think of any motive that could possibly be genuine.

Surprisingly, they both give tons of reasons that men might want to be free from masculinity.  The feminist rants about the causes of "violence; Patriarchal stereotypes, male insecurity, male ego, male frustration, male fear over female sexuality."  While the regressive points out that men work longer hours than women, and often do more dangerous jobs.  These reasons that men may want to break free of masculinity's maniacal amoral mores slap both commentators in the face, but they willfully refuse to notice.  Why?

The feminist is confounded that men would be able to solve anything by sitting around in a room and discussing "oppressive behavior."  Instead of violently and vehemently resisting something, she is upset that men are taking credit for discussing how best to tackle the problem.  One of the things that men have to learn from women is how to sit around in groups to discuss "oppressive behavior," as well as how to let go of "male insecurity, male ego" and see spending times with their families as more important than working long hours at dangerous jobs for a little more money.  Believe it or not, and neither of these commentators do, in some ways feminine methods of approaching life are actually BETTER than masculine ways of approaching life.  Sitting in a circle to talk about things is BETTER than violent and vehement reactions in some situations.  Working less and earning less in order to spend more time with your family is BETTER than earning more and seeing your family less for most men and women.

But in a society where our values have been defined by traditional masculinity for so long, even radical feminists default to thinking that masculine values and systems are superior.  Until we have a society wide wake-up call that shows regressive and progressive thinkers alike that we are all thinking way too masculine, equality will only be a pipe dream.