PART ONE: SISSYHOOD

1. There is now!

(introductory statement)



In late spring of the year 1980, about ten years after radical feminists in America began attracting national media attention, I was pressured into checking into a psychiatric hospital to have my sanity ascertained...for promoting essentially the same ideas. I am a committed feminist.

It is actually not unheard of for a person to be committed to the looney bins for living according to the tenets of radical feminism, because traditionalist husbands or fathers resort to this with their female kin quite often; indeed, it is a subject which deserves a book all its own. However, that is not my story (I'm male and my relatives were not involved), and this is not that book.

My invitation to talk to the nice doctors came about because no one seemed able to understand what I was talking about. Ten years of actively outspoken feminist women had not led to a simply and easily understood meaning of the terms "feminist" and "feminism", and no one could figure out how to pigeonhole or categorize a fervent male passing out xeroxed literature and talking about why we need to dismantle patriarchy; they seemed very certain that something else was bothering me, and finally decided I needed professional help!

As I sat down to compose my opening statements in an attempt to explain myself more fully, then, I decided to start with language, with the word itself...

(formal opening remarks to the court)

Almost anyone who has paid more than a moment's attention to the observations and complaints of the women's movement in the last twenty years has heard the indictments of our sexist language; women point out that they are scarcely recognized as being part of the human race by the forms of our speech. Early man invented the wheel and eventually established dominion over other species, our textbooks tell us, but what early woman might have been doing, they neglect to mention. No man is an island, but no woman appears in such truisms, and the person hearing folk wisdom understands that phrases that say "man is unique", for example, mean all of us...or does she? God created man in His own image, whereupon "man" gazed at her reflection in the water and said I am like unto God, for female and male created She them. That's not how religious history reads, but perhaps that's how religious herstory has it. And, though womankind is more inclined to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right the forms to which they are accustomed, many women have despaired at the mishmash of sexist language and cried, "Enough, already!" If man includes woman, why do we find listed, among the needs of man, "a wife to bear and care for his children"?

Well, womankind hath its vengeance now -- though perhaps ironically -- in the one place in our language where the male is girlcotted into semantic oblivion, and the women's movement need not look far and wide to find it. For, after considering the devastating effects of sexism and the patriarchal male sex role on men, I decided I was...a feminist.

Oh, there are other terms I could use, I suppose; and as a matter of fact, when asked (as I often do get asked) what is a feminist, I often reply that I am a liberationist male committed to a movement against a system called patriarchy. Nevertheless, all the other serious participants in that movement call themselves feminists, and to refer to myself by a different term no longer clearly indicates that I'm aligned with them. "Liberationist male" could mean any of a dozen special-interest movements which might have nothing to do with what the feminist movement is trying to accomplish.


And stressing that alignment with what the women are doing is important; I am a male seeking a liberation that will change and improve men's lives, but I am not simply seeking the liberation of men, but the end of a phenomenon called sexism and a system called patriarchy; and it so happens that there is no liberation of men without the liberation of women. Or, for that matter, vice versa.

There is a very real problem here, though, that extends beyond mere language when it comes to identifying myself as a feminist in the movement, for, while systemic sexism does enslave people of both sexes, it has been women who have done most of the work towards its elimination, and men have involved themselves much more often with standing in their way. And if you look towards people committed to the cause, who have made it their life's work and primary consideration, the discrepancy is even larger. Why?

Women point to the vacuum standing where their brothers logically ought to be with understandable annoyance. Are men stupid, lacking insight, or more in love with superior status than they are with a better life for all of us...or what? There are freedom and equality to be had, yet men don't seem to see it, or to care. Why?

True, men have traditionally been on the "master" side of a "master-slave" relationship with women, a situation less likely to drive them to confront the forms to which they were born, but men of today have had those forms confronted for them by the women in ways that make it apparent that domination is not all that desirable, considering the ultimate side effects; today's men have indeed been born in a world where a noisy consciousness of sexism has appeared, and if you were to ask virtually any woman in the movement to choose, if she had the chance, between living on an equal plane with men in a world without sexism or of having all the hassles as well as the privileges (including mastery) that the male sex role is composed of -- in other words, completely swapping -- you'd find the prospect of becoming "a man" doesn't interest her (and she'd think you were crazy for wondering).

Besides, the "superiority" of masculinity today is a hollow one, as women have succeeded in making the mechanics of their plight more tolerable, while retaining and even building upon the expressions of psychological and emotional health and outlets for such, while men are still trapped in their carapaces. That which is considered feminine draws enough men away from sexual identity for sex change operations to attract media attention, but there is no outspoken organization or society of radical men's libbers to shout for change. For the third time, why?

Let's look briefly at how men have reacted and responded to the feminist movement, and how the women of the movement have generally regarded the significance of men.

First, and most obviously, many men have responded with open derision and hostility and fear, reacting to feminism as if it was a real threat to their lives, one that could only bring unpleasant results as far as males were concerned. Paralleling this attitude, many feminists (even popular published theorists) have themselves described their activities as if they were antithetical to male happiness, and vice versa.

Less obvious forms of patriarchal reprisal have labeled themselves "men's liberation" and "men's rights groups" and so forth, taking a Sauce for the Gander approach to this business of righting sexist wrongs, setting their sights on alimony, child custody, ladies' nights in the bars, and a few other chivalrously sexist practices. These groups and movements are not aligned with the goals of the women's movement; they do not theorize about how the world could be effectively ridded of patriarchy and sexism, nor do they examine the personal debilitation that a sexist world might cause them as males socialized into it. Their line of thought is confined primarily to seeking the immediate profits to be made from the equal-treatment philosophy. The radical feminist philosophers are well aware of these, and one result of this is that a male declaring himself to be a "men's libber" or anything of the sort is not likely to be welcomed by the feminist movement with open arms.

A less cynical men's liberation movement exists for the purpose of rescuing modern men from tension and ulcers and unfulfilling relationships; more genuinely validating of men's human personhood, this therapeutic type of businessman's lib-from-corporate-manhood-norms salutes the feminist women...with a nod of effortless support:


"Sure, give the women equal rights, I'm all for equality. The way I look at it, women's liberation includes men's liberation. Honey, while you're up, would you mind liberating me, too?"

Then, finally, come the only male feminists who seem to embrace the radical feminist theory (the complete feminist analysis of all facets of human interaction)...the grovelers! Instead of challenging the notion that feminism is contradictory to male fulfillment and interests, they cling tightly to it; in this, they resemble the openly hostile men, but instead of seeking some sort of male-validating countermeasures, they embrace feminism with self-denying apology: "Rejoice, we have seen the light...glaring down upon us and revealing us for the sordid oppressors that we are. Let us fall in humility before the wrath of those whose shoelaces we are unfit to kiss, and plead for tolerance and forgiveness for our male sins; spare us, though we do not deserve mercy or notice..."

Well, I didn't come here to talk about ulcers or high blood pressure, and I'm not here to apologize. I'm here to address myself to the favorable association between undiluted radical feminism and the male gender. I am going to tell you why men are the way we are, why males behave according to sex role and personality/behavior norms such as those that the women have been complaining about; I am going to show you why so many men are cruel, woman-hating, life-hating. It isn't a character defect that comes with the y chromosome. It is a socialized response, something impressed into men without our choosing it, with penalties for not internalizing those impressions; in other words, it is not to our advantage, nor is it our fault. I am therefore here partially to get my gender off the hook. I am not trying to excuse those male behaviors (and behavior norms), or to excuse us from full-fledged participation in the struggle to change things, but I am going to explain some of the reasons that these things are the way they are, in terms people with insight and empathy can understand. If I am a good teacher, a lot of people may stop asking me why I am a feminist and start asking other men why the hell they aren't!

I've alluded to some vague idealistic theoretical stuff that is already part of feminism, ideas about how a nonsexist world would be better for all of us so therefore feminism is of benefit to men, too, etc....this is true, but implicit in our culture's thinking about feminism and sexism and patriarchy is the notion that at least on the personal and sexual level, men benefit from the way things are, and of course we know about globally distant concepts and just how much effect they tend to have on individuals who want to concentrate on the happiness of Number One: maybe patriarchy leads to atomic bombs, but boys will be boys as long as they think feminism would mean sacrifices on the personal front.

So I've got a myth to disprove about the personal desirability of being born male and raised in a patriarchal world. I've got a story to tell, a picture to paint. I have been through personal trauma from living that experience.

Now, it would be fair to point out that women's oppression under patriarchy includes more "hard", external oppression, and that men's problems as men are more limited to what men internalize, which many feel could be dealt with on an individual level. And yet, I have pretty much exorcised myself of most of my hang-ups along those lines, and even now, "liberated", there are external realities that constantly damage my life; being male is not that much of an advantage. Patriarchy is not male heaven, and when its social systems are indicted by feminists, it is usually with an awareness that these systems are not good for anyone, male or female. But it is somehow an entirely different thing to state that patriachy is male hell, to specify that patriarchy is the primary conceptual and structural enemy to personal male happiness.

To do so is not only to challenge popular belief about the woman-selfishness and man-hatingness of feminism (especially radical feminism). It also opens up a real can of worms for feminists themselves. The lack of feminist unanimity on the question did not lead to a crisis in the movement as long as the attention was on personal changes for women and structural political and economic changes to counter the "hard" oppressions; nor did it seem to cause a major rift when domestic issues (such as insisting on male participation in housework) became a serious issue. But now there seems to be two new female perspectives on the feminist movement and its fate: one holding


that women are as free as they can be, given the existence of men as they are, since men have changed little in response to feminist criticism; the other looking at men and male lives and masculine personality and behavior with new curiosity in an attempt to understand those in whom they would like to see changes. Lurking behind these approaches are worries about the death of the current movement. If today's twenty-year-olds think they are as free as they can get (given the natural tendency of boys to be boys), will the movement die out? On the other hand, if the movement expands to include males as both subject matter and as participants, will it still be feminism at all?

Actually, there have already been splits in the modern movement in its brief history, including the radical- liberal split, the much-publicized straight-lesbian split and the squabbling about whether fighting pornography amounts to censorship or ending gynocidal propaganda. They haven't resulted in the end of the movement, and the fact that feminists in general have been willing to be honestly divided rather than cast "solidarity" in the concrete of orthodoxy seems to have kept feminism alive and visible even in the reactionary 80s. The question I bring before you now, however, represents a tricky question, because sexually integrating what was first called the women's liberation movement would definitely change its original scope.

Now, if I were to come before you and propose that you change the scope of what you are about to include me and my concerns, I would expect to be laughed at; and indeed, that is often what I am perceived to be doing. But I did not begin calling myself a "feminist" until long after that scope had already expanded and deepened. The radical elements of the women's liberation movement long ago became concerned with far more than removing the gender- specific constraints that were placed only on women and went on to examine the total restructuring that would make possible a truly worthwhile and fulfilling existence for women. Soon feminist theory had come to offer a view on patriarchal hierarchical structures that I, too, find dehumanizing, and to study the very causes of wars that I might be expected to fight in someday. There is, to be sure, a variety of feminism that remains concerned only with the original goal of achieving parity for women, but I could join their organizations right now if I so chose (they like men to come by supporting women's causes. It shows that men like me are willing to change our ways and make some effort to understand them, and they impress really easily: wow, a man noticed that!) instead of venturing to speak to you here.

In other words, I think the original scope changed a long time ago. Radical feminism is and has been for some time now a powerful and highly dynamic social science, the only one born outside of and antagonistic towards the patriarchal society it studies; but -- or therefore -- as such, its validity depends upon the assumption that its external and antagonistic perspective is a viable way of looking at the world we live in, that it makes intrinsic sense. Now, one could argue as a separatist that it is viable and makes intrinsic sense even though men (being somehow incapable of seeing reality for what it is) cannot share that perspective. In other words, radical feminism doesn't need male concurrence to make it valid, now or ever.

But if males -- some quantity thereof -- make it apparent that we can share that perspective, and along with it the antagonism and the desire to understand these matters further, there is neither reason nor excuse for this dynamic social science to act as if its validity stems from the presence of ovaries or a clitoris. Obviously, feminism, of all disciplines, cannot make such a claim without losing all viability. And that is what is at stake here.

Although there is still work to be done, radical feminism has completed the initial phase of understanding how female persons are turned into the cultural construct Woman. The time has come for radical feminism to understand what being male is like, to understand what you would be able to understand if a radical feminist had access to the experience male to study it and understand how patriarchal cultural forces turn males into Men.

That understanding is accessible to radical feminists now. That is what I'm here for. I bring that. That is what this testimony is going to be about. I am here to make my personal life politically accessible. At the same time, though, I (and any other serious males doing the same thing) bring with me the question of sexual integration (and/or cooptation) of the movement, and I know it. If one man is taken seriously as a radical feminist, then radical feminism has just "gone coed". I wish to be taken seriously.

I come before you now to speak to you about my life, to show you my anger, my jealousies, my hurts and longings...I give you a full-fledged crybaby of a man calling out against sexism and the male experience with patriarchy, garnishing those intellectualized theories with a taste of how it feels! Have you ever heard of a men's lib that screams?

Okay, then, stand back...'cause there is now!
Table of Contents
Forward to Next Section