This post has been self-published on Youth Ki Awaaz by Shambhavi Saxena. Just like them, anyone can publish on Youth Ki Awaaz. Find out more
Can A “Feminist Men Calendar” Tip The Scales On Gender Equality?
More from Shambhavi Saxena
By Shambhavi Saxena:
In feminist news this month, third-year NYU law student Marcella Leininger Kocolatos has created a kickstarter project to crowd-fund her “Feminist Men of New York Calendar” (FMNY2016), which will feature a photo and profile of a dozen men “who actively oppose gender-based oppression and other manifestations of social inequality.”
Talking about the inherent bias against or downright disbelief in feminism as a social and political movement, Kocolatos says, “Too few women identify as feminists; even fewer men do.” Reconceptualized by garden variety patriarchs as a synonym for PMSing, alimony-hungry, fat, ugly women, feminism is stripped of its revolutionary character and hauled up as an example of non-conformist behaviour. Not only that, but feminists and their bodies become sites for punishment of said non-conformism, the most recent incident being Grace Mann’s murder.
Dismissing feminism only cements power structures that favour upper class/caste, racially ‘superior’, cishet, able-bodied and neurotypical persons (but particularly males) in society. To have more or less the same power-group representing the feminist movement, even in as limited a form as a calendar, feels a bit too White-Knight-rescue-mission, because us feminists haven’t been able to market ourselves in a desirable enough way.
Backlash from Men’s Rights Activists is to be expected, but the response to the project from other feminists ranges from tepid to unimpressed. NYMag’s Jessica Roy didn’t find “men [demanding] recognition for the work women have been doing for decades” particularly ground-breaking. It takes us back to the question of whether men can be feminists (since they don’t experience systemic oppression the way women do first hand) or are better off being feminist-allies. Derrick Clifton’s piece for male feminists shows men can “help [the movement] while remaining cognizant of how their identities may limit their understanding of women’s struggles”. One wonders if Kocolatos’ subjects, who are not hyper-sexualized calendar girls to be ogled at, are sensitive to said limits, and if so, does that still qualify them as the ideal subjects?
Emma Watson’s well-intentioned #HeForShe campaign was followed by valid criticism of how new feminist projects were tailored to be acceptable to men before they could be of any use to anyone. Historically, women’s rights had to be run by men before they could be claimed legally, and it’s easy to see why anyone would be apprehensive about male approval being attached to women-specific issues. Is FMNY2016 seeking said approval? More than anything else, the calendar is concerned with the visual realization of an oft-vilified political identity. Kocolatos’ provides one of an infinitude of answers to that stupid old question “what does a feminist look like?” and rubbishes “the tired stereotypes you hear is that all feminists hate men”, by conflating the identities of ‘man’ and ‘feminist’ in a single body. As progressive as that sounds, kicking the “no boys allowed” sign off the tree-house of gender justice battles can be an oversimplified tactic to achieve inclusivity.
Does Kocolatos’ project seem like it’s trying to convince men of feminism’s worth? Or does it have more of a bell hooks’ Feminism is for Everybody ring to it? Clearly, the politics are in place, but the execution could do with some work.
As “a small, symbolic gesture toward combatting long-held misconceptions about feminism”, FMNY2016 bears no ill-will to the movement, but Kocolatos’ choice of subjects is problematic.
Her objective was to demonstrate how “advocating for gender equality through words and actions is part and parcel with being a compassionate, intelligent man,” but would the calendar have been any less effective if it had featured female-identified feminists? And I’m not talking about monochrome side profiles of Gloria Steinems and Maya Angelous. I’m talking about young bloods who walk among us, struggling over term papers like we do, and mix drinks for flatmates, people who’ve never set foot outside their home state, but whose blood freezes and boils at the mention of gender injustice anywhere in the world and who stand at street corners handing out flyers or shout themselves hoarse at public rallies.
Would it have been less effective with wheelchairs and hearing aids and different body types and ethnicities? The effect the calendar might have on buyers can only be estimated. I wonder about the likelihood of a straight non-feminist male (a) purchasing the calendar, (b) actually putting it up in his home, and (c) being moved to action by these dozen men’s feminist politics. Not as likely, I think, as the calendar going the Ryan Gosling Meme way to become a diluted attempt at reversing the male gaze.
You must be logged in to comment.
B
There is no such thing as gender equality and there can never be, until we stop giving women preferential treatment, just because they are women. Equality is only applicable when it works in favour of women. What a bunch of hypocrites, full of double standards.
1. Lifeboats are reserved for women.
2. The media only focuses on women’s issues.
3. World’s most dangerous jobs are worked by men.
4. Seats are reserved for women on public transport.
5. News channels announce deaths of ‘women’ and children.
6. Juries discriminate against men in domestic violence disputes.
7. Women have special quotas in the parliament, companies, and colleges.
8. Women receive lighter sentences for the same crimes committed by men.
9. Child custody is given to women is divorce courts, in the majority of cases.
10. Men have to earn for women, but women are not under any obligation to earn for men.
11. Domestic violence and dowry are seen as women’s issues, while men are the prime victims.
12. Men give women child support and alimony, not the other way around. Men are ripped off their life savings.
13. Men are used as ATMs. Women always marry men who are richer, earn more, ‘well-settled’, and better educated.
14. Men die on jobs daily. 95% of work related deaths are of men, but that is neither an issue, not something that women and children are grateful for.
15. Draconian laws where women can land men behind bars with little evidence if any, giving a rise to false cases of dowry, rape, and domestic abuse. Police readily believe women, even though they lie more.
ItsJustMe
There are no misconceptions about feminism. People form their opinions based on their experience with a movement. Not by what their leaders say or what its definition. Feminism has been a women’s is movement, it has never been gender equality movement. It has never taken up men’s issues. It has also consistently induced victim complex in women by focusing on things that no women ever considered oppressive before. Even when trying to rebrand itself and market itself to men, it has the arrogance and selfishness to never include men’s rights in its agenda. It has failed to be apologetic about its huge number of radical leaders who are largely the reason why the movement is hated so much (even by women)