Feminists! It’s f-off to the f-word
Is feminism a fight for gender equality, or an outlet for frustrated lesbianism? Kate Smith and Heidi Blake find out what York men think
Feminism is an elusive and evolving concept. It remains hotly debated and wildly controversial, but whilst men have always been involved in the debate, their voices are conspicuous by their absence in the process of definition and development. So, given the chance, how would men define feminism? Is it nothing more than an outdated theory? Or perhaps merely an outlet for frustrated lesbianism? Does it vindicate a conception which indiscriminately perceives all men as bastards and promotes notions of female supremacy? Is modern post-feminism an excuse for selfish female hedonism? Or, could it be that men see feminism as nothing more than the propagation of gender equality?
Keen to explore the opinions of a wide range of men, we burned our bras and descended upon York’s traditional watering holes, armed with a dictaphone, a veritable library of well-thumbed feminist polemic, and a thirst for revolution. While, much to our chagrin, revolutionary spirit was not overwhelmingly forthcoming from the men of York, the conversations we had did reveal just what an elusive concept feminism is. Not a single person we spoke to had a pre-considered definition to offer, but all were willing to bash out some ideas, though sadly some seemed keener to bash us, with our own copies of The Female Eunuch, no less.
One man we spoke to insisted that “feminism is about looks”. He suggested that “beautiful women” were unlikely to be feminists and claimed that a feminist can be detected by signs of what he described as “frustrated lesbianism”. A penchant for “unrevealing clothes” is a telling signal, we’re told. An absence of make-up is another crucial factor, but this look is apparently incomplete without that internationally recognised beacon of female homosexuality: “a pair of spectacles”. Encouragingly, his companion, Peter, quickly interjected, exclaiming, “it’s not the look, it’s how you portray yourself. It’s all about the attitude”. We were reassured by Peter’s rejection of his friend’s more superficial approach, but our hopes were dashed when we asked him to elaborate on the defining characteristics of the ‘attitude’ he spoke of. He responded “one like yours, love, you’re bloody ‘orrible!”. At this point we considered it wise to take ourselves, and our trusty Germaine, elsewhere.
The next man we spoke to, Dave, when asked what he thought of feminism was keen to stress that he thought “women should not be chained to the kitchen sink”. After our previous encounter, this at least was reassuring. However, he went on to say “I don’t like the term feminism; it carries a lot of baggage with it, like all that bra-burning nonsense”. When questioned on his strong feelings towards the process of incinerating underwear, he exclaimed “I don’t see the point in burning them, I’d prefer it if they just took them off!”. At this point, Dave began to extol the virtues of the aforementioned items of negligee, as a somewhat glazed look of obscure bliss descended upon his previously animated countenance. Not being of prudish disposition, we were undeterred from our investigations.
After being gently chastised and duly apologising for his somewhat inappropriate underwear-related tangent, Dave earnestly expressed concern about feminists’ tendency towards what he described as an ‘all men are perverts’ mentality, adding “there are 30 million men in the country, how can you generalise?”
We couldn’t help but note the irony inherent in Dave’s comments, but concerned to survey as many of these 30 million men as possible, we moved on to our next victim, John. Directing his comments towards the generation of younger women often labelled ‘post feminists’, but more recently and controversially termed ‘female chauvinist pigs’ by radical feminist author, Kira Cochrane, John suggested that “a feminist is someone who wants everything her own way; to have her cake and eat it”. He expressed frustration with women who “want to be treated equally but are not prepared to do what a man does. They want equality but at the same time expect to have doors opened for them and to be treated like ladies”. When asked what he thought a feminist ought to be like, he cited Germaine Greer: “a woman who practices what she preaches when it comes to equality”. And, of course, she sports a pair of fetching spectacles, is reserved in her choice of attire and is hardly likely to volunteer as the face of the next L’Oreal campaign.
While few men had a clear definition of feminism, almost everyone we spoke to was readily equipped with a list of problems which they thought it posed, not only for men but also for women.
One man we spoke to, Dan, commented that “shoving feminism down people’s throats doesn’t make sense. Women are equal. Everybody else realises it, it’s just women who can’t accept that and move on”. When we blithely and cheerily mentioned the resounding lack of direct representation of women in Parliament, the recently exposed 23% average pay gap for equal work, and the glass ceiling of the perceived maternal role, Dan paled noticeably, and swiftly departed.
Determined to remain unperturbed and to keep our feminist cool, we took a few deep breaths, quoted some inspirational passages from The Female Eunuch and, supping furtively on our menstrual blood, adjusted our spectacles and moved on to the next table.
One of the more thoughtful criticisms of feminism made was by Richard: “Feminists belittle women who choose to stay at home and look after their children. Surely what’s important is that the woman has the freedom to choose for herself, rather than responding to social pressure from either camp”. After our previous conversations, we were overjoyed on behalf of the sisterhood to encounter this more enlightened approach. Germaine herself would be proud, and we thought it necessary to celebrate over a couple of pints of Guinness, while assuring Richard that there are many schools of feminism which embrace women who choose the family over the workplace.
After Richard departed, with a newly acquired copy of The Second Sex in his hand and the revolutionary spirit in his heart, we met Jacob, who was commendably articulate after several pints. He was the only man interviewed willing to identify himself as a feminist, though he did go on to express some concerns about the concept: “I’m not a fan of anything that’s an ‘ism’. I’m afraid you start talking to ideas rather than people. Feminism puts ideas first sometimes and ideas are always defective. I’m uncomfortable with the tendency towards female-supremacy disguised as feminism; that’s not what feminism is about, and actually all men are not bastards. My friends and I are rather nice, as it happens.” And indeed they were.
During the evening, what became clear was that, whether or not it is regarded by men as an outmoded concept, feminism is certainly seen as an outdated term. Even those who expressed broadly feminist ideas did not identify them with feminism itself. Perhaps Dave was right; the term does carry too much baggage with it. Preconceptions made full and frank discussion nigh on impossible. The moment the f-word passed our lips, the men we spoke to battened down the conversational hatches. So perhaps a new language of gender equality is required if its true meaning is to be understood. After all, if men are expected to join the fight, they shouldn’t have to do battle in the name of a “sisterhood” – a term which is exclusive in upholding the very gender divide feminism seeks to overcome.
Satisfied to have found something vaguely resembling an answer through a haze of Guinness-induced crapulence, we wended our merry way home feeling confident that, now our good work has been done, we could remove our specs without compunction and sleep soundly. After all, the real work starts tomorrow, when we must take the red pen of redefinition to our well-thumbed feminist favourites. Perhaps it’s time to say f-off to the infamous f-word. Or perhaps that’s just the drink speaking.
