Is there a place for men in feminism?

This discussion has been restarted on the next post, where the discussion emphasis is less on the attack/defense of feminism in general and more on the place of male feminists within feminism (i. e., on topic).

I am a feminist. By this I mean that I believe that nationally and globally, there is de facto political, economic and social dominance of men over women. Society inherently values men more than women in most areas of public social life. I believe that these inequities need to be corrected.

That said, I struggle as a male feminist. I’m not embarrassed about my stance on women’s rights, and I happily evangelize the feminist cause to other men. The problem for me is that I’m not quite sure of what a man’s place in feminism should be. As I throw out a few questions, I hope that they will be taken in the questioning, neophyte spirit that they’re offered.

I hesitate to be much more than a cheerleader in feminist circles. I’m always worried that my intrusion into a female-dominated feminist dialogue will be perceived as an the insertion of male authority. (And I cringe whenever I see men undermine feminism in such forums, especially online, and I hope that I’m not doing the same thing with this post.)

As I pursue my academic career, I write and present papers on feminist topics, but I get the sense that my professors and even some of my fellow feminists don’t take me seriously. I’m continually drawn to feminist theory, issues, and concerns as I think about research projects, but part of me feels that making this my main focus would kill my career before it even had a chance to get started. In the insanely competitive academic market, who would hire a man to teach feminist theory, when there are so many women who would be better qualified?

I’m trying to resist these stifling impulses because I feel that in order for sexism to be eradicated, men need to be converted to feminism. My vision of the success of feminism is a world in which both sexes are true and equal partners, and much of the masculine=positive, feminine=negative notions are blended together. It would seem to me that feminism should be perceived as a mixed movement. Men need to become heavily involved in it, but this means the possibility of male engagement, criticism and leadership within feminism. I realize that this is problematic (men would have to overcome all sorts of issues with power), but is it antithetical to the feminist cause?

In practical terms, is feminism a woman-only movement? Are feminist forums essentially female forums? Is it possible to discuss feminism as a female and male issue, as a joint concern of both men and women? Is there a place for men in feminism?

18 thoughts on “Is there a place for men in feminism?

  1. John–thanks for posing this question. I hope to do it justice. I’m going to post my response on my blog as well, because that way I can install some links.

    First, I believe that men should identify themselves as feminists, and work to improve the lives of women, advance the cause of women’s rights, and fight sexism; that white people must fight racism and work to improve the lives of people of color; that straight people need to fight homophobia and support gay rights; that rich people need to care about poor people; that human beings need to work for the humane treatment of animals, and so on. Everyone needs to be on the side of justice. No righteous cause (and I use that term advisedly) ever truly succeeds until even those who benefit from an unjust system begin to work to overthrow it. Slavery would still exist were it not for the efforts of those who were NOT slaves.

    Re: doing feminist theory in academia–there are plenty of male academics who work on feminism and gender theory. I think you’re probably going to face an uphill battle, just as white people who do race theory face some suspicion. I don’t, however, think that’s a reason not to do it. I realize I am not in your department, and I have only heard a little of the work you’ve done on feminism, but I take you pretty seriously: I appreciate your academic work on and your personal commitment to feminism, and as you will (I hope) attest, I have encouraged and defended both.

    As was recently discussed in the comments on “Mellencamp, the Game” on my blog, I feel grief and pain when men I consider enlightened and humane refuse to identify themselves as feminists. And as you and I have discussed, and as I have discussed on my blog, I heartily applaud the decision by any man (but especially Mormon men and men I like) to embrace the cause of feminism. I hope people will go to my blog and check out the archives for the things I’ve written about Mormon male feminists–there’s quite a bit. I was delighted to see the panel on the topic at Sunstone last August, and hope that it will be a recurring panel. And I am grateful for the efforts of men in the past who worked for women’s rights–the world is a better place for women not only because of Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan, but John Stewart Mill.

    But since your entry here arises in part from comments I made on Exponent II, let me create an analogy that I hope illustrates why I objected when a man asked a question in a feminist forum about whether or not Mormon men who are single suffer as much from their single status as Mormon women who are single–and then answered his own question in the affirmative, though he did acknowledge that although men’s pain was as great as women’s, there seemed to be more women who had the problem–i.e., there are more old maids in the Mormon church than old bachelors. And let me also explain why I was disappointed when several women rushed to support him.

    Let’s say there’s a forum devoted primarily to discussing the concerns of black people in the US, although people of any race are welcome to participate. And a discussion arises about poverty. And a comfortably situated white person comes along and asks, “Do you think white people suffer as much as black people under the conditions of poverty? I know both black and white people who’ve really struggled, so I think it’s the same emotionally, though I admit there are more poor black people than poor white people.”

    Well, gee! I have an adequate grasp of the obvious, and I’m pretty sure it sucks to be poor, no matter what color your skin is. But the fact of the matter is, I’ve never been truly poor; moreover I’ve never been black and poor, never felt several centuries of cultural oppression that have conspired to make poverty particularly acute in the black community, never faced a particular sort of hopelessness in terms of dealing with the problem of basic subsistence.

    And let’s imagine that in this forum, once this question has been posed, several of the black people immediately rushed to say, “Wow, I bet poverty IS really bad for white people!” instead of, “Yeah, it’s bad for white people too, but, uh, why are you bringing it up here, and why are you bringing it up in this particular way?” At that point, I would have to question not only the motives of the person who posed the question, but the motives of the people who responded as well–it would seem to me that ultimately, this group was more about placating white people, reassuring them that their egos need not be threatened by this little racially oriented forum, than about doing what it had actually stated as its mission.

    And perhaps if I were truly wise, I’d just leave these people to their foolishness–god knows I’ve seen this situation before, and god knows I’ve seen so little change in the past when I’ve done this–but somehow, I actually still care about both feminism and Mormonism, and I just can’t stop myself from saying, “Um, um, not to be rude or anything, but, you know, this sounds like complete and utter bullshit to me.”

    Because the fact of the matter is, I have neither patience nor respect for such things. I say to men who claim they want to talk about feminism, TALK ABOUT FEMINISM! The point is this: men as a collective are the recipients and wielders of privilege and power, and if that’s going to change and we’re going to achieve gender equality, you’ve got to be willing to give up some of that privilege and power, so START NOW. Set aside some of your concerns in the short term, and be willing to relinquish some of your privilege for eternity. Because that’s what has to happen for gender equality to happen: those with power have to give some of it up.

    And for god’s sake, don’t expect a pat on the back just because you hang out with women who call themselves feminists. Put your money where your mouth is–which in some cases, means shutting the hell up about your masculine concerns.

  2. My notion of equality is that you can not ever obtain equality so long as you continue to segregate yourself or anyone else out for special or extra attention. How can one group hope to be equal with another group as long as they continue to say they are different and need special attention? I dont think equality will ever happen until all the boundaries are ignored. BY the way you know there is only one race (human race) and what culture calls race is really a social construct. There is as much genetic difference in the shape of an earlobe as there is for skin color, which isnt really skin color but rather the amount of pigment in the skin because we all have the same color skin without mellanin.

    I take this from my life experience as a Japanese-American and a soldier. I’m not sure what experiences you have had, but I have been subject to racism because a traditionally raised Japanese in the U.S. Army knew I was a mixed breed and tried to interfere with my Army scholarship. I’ve had caucasians call me a Jap. I’ve had African-American call me whitey and strike my from behind trying to pick a fight. In the Army, they try to create equality by giving females extremely low physical standards. Now according to these standards a female of half the strength and endurance can score higher and appear more physically fit than her male counterpart. Unfortunately this means that you now rely upon this female who is a combat medic to carry you off the battle field and going into combat you both know full well that she will not be able to do so. There should be one combat standard regardless of sex. If you can do the job then you get the job. I think that is how it should be in any thing. color, sex, creed, should make no difference and no special consideration should be given. If a person is qualified then he or she is qualified. Color of skin, male or female, none of it defines our will to accomplish great things, our work ethic, our accomplichments, unless of course we let it.

    In our societies attempt to create equality all it does is give extra attention, and benefits which help to perpetuate the inequality. By focussing on differences you can never get rid of them.

    I dont believe in feminism, because I think it perpetuates a segregation of sexes. I believe in personism.

    hey on the side, I was talking to papa and he said he knows of some people who think the term “human” is sexist because it contains “man”, but the way I see it. If “human” covers man and woman. and for female you take away the “hu” and add “wo” to make “woman”, than why do we men get the short end of the stick and remove the “hu” and all we get are three little letters “man”? I feel left out. I want more letters! thats not fair! :(

  3. I’m not sure how a person can experience several centuries of anything. The only thing a person can experience are the current conditions at hand. Perhaps those conditions arose from several centuries of conditions, but as a finite and time bound entity, a person can only experience what his imediate conditions.

    Is there really a disproportionately higher percentage of poor black people? I know our society tends to automatically say that in any situation. If we take a look at hurricane katrina, what we find is that whites were disproportionately harmed by the disaster, and yet the news media has made such a spectacle about how african americans have been hurt by the disaster.

    Perhaps there are more poor african americans because they have come to rely on a system which helps to perpetuate the poor and in some way may be really targetted on african americans which in turn instead of creating equality by getting them out of poverty allows them to remain in the system and labelled as poor. It is easier to be poor and living on government aid than it is to be floating in between, too poor to afford any decent housing, dental or health care, yet making too much to qualify for government aid like welfare. And yet once you get on welfare it is so easy to just stay in the system.

    I have been in such a position where if I had no work ethic or honor, it would have been much easier to just get rid of my job and get the government aid. Instead I worked and while barely affording housing, and worrying what would happen if my kids got sick, I hated knowing that while I worked as hard as I could and still unable to afford benefits, some lazy person had full coverage which the taxes from my hard work was paying for. About the lowest I have been was to live in a roah infested apartment where illeagle aliens would fill several families to an apartment, the next door neighbor beat his wife into premature labor, he was sodomized outside our front door by the drug guys he owed money to, and some random person was beaten outside our door one night. We had no working hot water, a huge hole in our wall, and the only thing that helped was WIC (Women Infant and Chidlren program), which I think is a sexist program which in a way ignores the hard working men who invest as much effort into their children as the mother does. In fact I think men give up so much more. I have lived for years where my children were never awake during the hours I was actually home from providing for my family. My wife had to wake them up just so I could get a groggy “I love you, daddy” from them. How much of their lives did I miss just to provide for them? How many moments will I never experience because I worked my life away so they could live theirs?

    Yet I am seen as the one with the “privilege and power” because I am a man.

  4. What does Josh’s account of his difficulties prove?

    Well, I could say it shows why poor people shouldn’t have children–after all, poor parents hardly ever see their kids, and they have to house them in crappy places, and they can’t send the kids to good schools.

    And I could say that I don’t want to hear a story that focuses on differences like rich vs poor, or hard-working vs having-it-easy, because after all if we focus on difference, we just perpetuate difference.

    Or I could say, I think it sucks when people have hard lives, and I’m committed to doing what I can to make the world a better place for the kids in your family, as well as for the kids in mine.

    And it wouldn’t even hurt me to say it.

  5. Holly, Josh, I REALLY appreciate your comments. I love you both, but I just wanted to gently nudge the conversation back on track: this isn’t a post about feminism in general–Within the context of this entry, I’m working under the assumption that feminism *is* valid and valuable. If we begin attacking/defending the feminist movement as a whole, we move away from my original question. I’ve let a lot of posts run wild that way, but I have a specific burning question here that I would like addressed.

    This post is *specifically* about my concern about the place of men who support feminism within a well established feminist movement. Holly addressed this question spot-on in comment #1. I had a feminist audience in mind when I wrote the post, so I probably wasn’t as explicit as I could have been. (though I was very implicit!) :)

    Josh, you have valid concerns and I would love to respond to your critiques of feminism in general. I’m going to try to write a post defending feminism in the near future, and I think your above comments would fit perfectly within that context. By attacking feminism as a whole you do indirectly address my question–but could you address the place of men (especially feminist ones) in feminism more explicitly? Thanks! :)

  6. I guess first of all:

    I dont think there is a place for feminism at all, because it its attempt to seek balance and equality it merely reverses the process by drawing too much focus and special treatment on the opposite side.

    I think if there is a movement towards equality of the sexes it should not be labelled feminism but rather personism.

    In this movement men and women should be equally motivated and active.

    Should men be involved in feminism? No, because no one should be involved in any movement that specifically targets one group rather than an equality of all.

    Like the previous example I gave with my army battle standard theory: There should not be a lowering of standards for female physical fitness in order to give the appearance of equality, but rather one set standard that is blind to sex. If any one can meet that standard then they are fit to do the job.

    Like wise any movement to seek equality should focus on getting rid of current special treatment, and seeking to replace it with equal standards, rather than trying to give special treatment to the opposite side, because then later on in history who knows we men will be in a masculism movement for men’s rights because this unbalanced feminism went too far. Standards should be blind to sex or any other seperating factor, not focused on any one specific delimiter wether male or female.

    So again:

    Should men be involved in feminism? In as much as feminism is not truly a productive method of reaching equality, NO. No one should be, as much as I would say no one should be involved in a neo-Nazi group.

    Should men be involved in a movement for equal treatment of the sexes? Yes of course.

    Perhaps you could spearhead such a movement. Mot masculinism, or feminism, or any group that seeks to give special attention to any one group, but rather one that is truly for once seeking true equality by destroying unequal standards rather than creating new standards.

  7. Wow, I didnt realise anyone would be so sensitive. I did not mean to offend anyone.
    But I’d like to correct a misconception or maybe a lack of understanding:

    “lets not look at differences, lets not admit that there might actually be a problem that we might need to fix”

    1. Did I say lets not look at differences?

    I said we should not recognize differences because continuing to acknowledge differences that should not even be there in the first place only maintains a holding to them.

    2. Did I say lets not admit there is a problem to fix?

    I said there is a problem to fix, but trying to reverse the problem only creates a new problem. Fixing a problem with a problem helps no one. The only way to fix the problem is to get rid of it. If unequality is the problem, then how will reverse unequality fix it?

    Tell me. Would you really feel equal if it required special treatment for you to fell equal, or if you were given the exact same treatment as everyone else.

  8. How about instead of trying to create special treatment for women wetry to seek out true equality regardless of sex and create a solution for equal treatment rather than special treatment for women.

    We put our money where our mouths arewhich in some cases, means I shut up about my masculine concerns and you shut the hell up about your feminine concerns, and instead we focus on the concerns of humanity in whole. ;)

  9. In general, I’m sympathetic to Holly’s concerns about men stepping into conversations about women’s issues and then saying “Hey, what about me?” I could definitely see how such hijacking could be a way to shut women up from delving into women’s concerns. (In fact, if I didn’t know Mike and know that the only reason he posts at all on the x2 blog is because he wants to support me, I might be suspicious of his motives as well.)

    But I do have mixed feelings about this. Yes, men stepping into conversations about feminism and bringing up men’s issues can derail the conversation. But I also think it’s VERY healthy for men to look at ways in which gender roles constrain them as well. And I personally don’t mind if they bring up questions about their own gender constraints as men and compare them to women’s as long as they are sincere and aren’t pushy when the conversation comes back women’s issues. For me it’s all about intent: if the intent is to derail, then it’s unacceptable. But if it’s to further conversation and make connections between one’s self and the other, then I have no problem with it. (of course, figuring out intent is a problem.)

    John, there’s definitely a place for you in feminism. I have no problem with men engaging in feminist ideas and conversations, and I think such conversations would be all the poorer if you didn’t occassionally also bring up the gender constraints which affect you as a male.

  10. To answer you question in a more broad sense.

    In any social movement which seeks equality for multiple parties i.e. male/female, white/black, etc., how can you really seek equality unless you involve members of both parties, otherwise it is only focused on its own interests.

    If a group is truly seeking equality between men and women, how can it do so if it excludes men? That in itself would show that it does not truly seek equality.

    In this sense then the answer is yes there should definately be a place for men in the group.

  11. Josh, your comments highlight a caricatured sense of feminism that is not representative of the mainstream or the wide range of feminisms (although it is the image often presented in the media). Your comments have dominated the discussion (half of them so far), and have compared feminists to Nazis (which, however accurate you may think it is, is a loaded term and inappropriate for a mutually respectful dialogue) and in them you have admitted that “I dont think there is a place for feminism at all.”

    I’m relatively new to feminism. I’ve studied it for about three years now, albeit in a limited religious context. I’ve lurked on online feminist venues, presented research papers on feminist topics and participated in panel discussions. I have some understanding of the depth and range of feminism.

    Yet I still feel that there are fundamental aspects of feminist dialogue that I don’t understand. I posted my above request in humility, and you’ve changed the tone with a very heavyhanded and with a limited, highly politicized view of feminism. If anything, you’ve vindicated Holly’s and Caroline’s views that men have a tendency to step in hijack these sorts of conversations.

    This post was an attempt to create bridges, not burn them, to foster understanding and communication, not to scare people away. I’m hoping that not all of the life has been bludgeoned out of it.

  12. Feminism is a word with so many connotations and denotations that, IMO, it’s become a difficult term to use. Especially in Mormon circles, feminism has become a word that can polarize audiences that agree on equality for both sexes.

    Within academia, there is a move to use ‘gender studies’ rather than ‘feminism’ to disscuss inequality based on sex. Gender studies is a more encompassing term because it overcomes the exclusivity of ‘feminism’ while also acknowledging those who lie somewhere on the spectrum between, or outside of, male and female.

    I am very supportive of gender studies as a discipline. Much can be learned from analyzing how socially-defined notions of gender and sexuality have impacted, and continue to impact, our world.

    However, having said that, I am also very much in favor of female-positive environments that exclude men. I was one of the main advocates for banning men from our Mormon Feminist Rountable last fall and I have no regrets about that choice. I also participate in an all-female book group and purposefully have not encouraged any men to participate in our meetings. I wholeheartedly support women’s colleges and women-only organizations. Such environments allow women some autonomy from the still-repressive bonds of patriarchy.

    But, back to your original question John. Yes, I think there is a place for you in feminism. I think it will be a difficult path for you in academia, but perhaps not more so than any other field within the humanities where jobs are scarce and finding nonexistent(!). However, I would suggest that you take more classes on the history of feminism (I need to do this, too), so you (and I) can all be well-schooled in the history of this discipline and the scholars who’ve debated/discussed/theorized on many of these issues already. :)

  13. I dont think I have a caricatured sense of feminism. I dont think any group seeking “equality” has any right to ask for special attention or consideration. I have yet to see a group that does not singularly focus on their own agenda and thereby further the seperation out of which they try to break free from.

    For example the race issue. I would not try to seek equlity for Japanese-Americans by creating a group that seeks to pinpoint every issue where a japanese american can use a boost which might not otherwise be granted to any other group. I would rather create a race-free group that seek to look to where any specific groups are unfairly restricted and seek ways to destroy those restrictions.

    Maybe I did lump feminism with neo-nazism, but I would do the same if it was a Japanese-american group which only seeks to give extra bonus to a japanese-american, because by doing so they havent gotten rid of the problem, rather they are reinforcing it.

    Taken from an employers perspective. If I were to hire I would look at the resume regardless of sex and choose based upon qualifications. If I were to look at sex and decide I want to hire a woman because I dont have a 50% split in my company, then I have just put sex over qualification and made a sexist decision. But that is exactly what these ‘equality’ groups seek to do. They make the seperating disctintions they want to get rid of into the factors by which decisions are made or special treatment is given, thus the problem is further propogated.

    I responded in my own humble opinion, though it may seem strong it is no less strong the the hostile response I have received for voicing my opinion. Our nation is far from reaching equality because it continues to see seperation where there should be none, even yes, among the very groups that seek out equality help to perpetuate inequality.

    Not everything has a black and white answer. You asked if men have a place in feminism and I gave my answer by offering a different perspective. By taking it one step back, I posed the posibility that feminism like any other ‘focus on my group only’ group is slightly skewed in their attempt because they are fighting the symptom not the cause.

    I guess since I am the one person who does not agree with everyone else you are free to say that I am burning bridges, but I thought open discussion was free to a variance in opinions, even one that suggests that you step back and change the way you are doing something rather than finding different ways to carry on the same clonal trend.

    If next time you want a discussion where only people who agree with you are welcome just let me know, but I have always thought variety of perspectives makes the most colorful and constructive discussion. I am sorry you feel I bludgeoned the life out of this discussion.

    but in all honesty do you think a special group founded upon the very lines of seperation from which they are trying to break free from will ever be attain equality? Think about it. How does an “all-women organization” help to get rid of the “still-repressive bonds of patriarchy”. Rather all it does is give women some place to feel good, to feel “some autonomy”.

    here ends my contribution to this conversation.

  14. I’m a late comer to feminism as anything other than a reflexive “oh, of course equality” non-thought. The debate anout what to do with supportive men seems common; at Alas, there was a huge debate about female only threads– and the blogger is male.

    As a practical matter, the most (non-academic) encouraged participation is show up and be supportive. I suspect there’s a lot that’s lost with that view; recruiting further men to feminism seems difficult with so little to offer. (By so little I mean that even discussion is an erratic right; no other cause that I’m familiar with expects so little of a member.)

  15. A couple of thoughts:

    Writing feminism in academia – or rather, writing anything in academia through a feminist lens, has a good chance of getting undervalued and possibly disparaged, whether you’re a man or a woman. It depends on the academic integrity/honesty/openness of the teacher, and it’s been shocking to me how profs that are very liberal minded and open in some senses (eg, academic study of their own religious traditions) can be almost completely shut down when it comes to feminism.

    If you’re specifically interested in women’s studies/feminism (as opposed to say, religious studies, or philosophy, or engineering, or whatever, from a feminist pov), I think that there are definitely academic contributions that men can make. In particular, it’s unfortunate but true that a man’s critique of patriarchy will be considered more credible than a woman’s. So critique and critique hard.

    The thing is, you’re right, it might not make you more hire-able. The balance between making a true contribution to the field/culture in general and between being hire-able has to be personal. We all make our compromises with patriarchy and only you know how much you can afford to compromise your living for your views, or your views for your living.

    Caveat (and this is especially for you as a man, but I think that it’s something that all feminists should keep in mind): it’s better to stick up for you form of feminism and to fight for it *against* patriarchy than against other feminists. Yes, some forms of feminism may be better than others (imho) but pretty much even the least practically effective/intellectually sophisticated/whatever measure you want to use form of feminism is still so much better than the absence of it. I think that as long you’re fighting patriarchy and not feminists, you’re part of the solution and fighting the good fight.

    Negotiating how feminists talk amongst each other, even all female feminists, is part of feminism and there’s nothing wrong with being cheerleader most if not all of the time. We *need* to be each other’s cheerleaders.

    Anyway I guess the point is, you’ll figure it out. I’m sure you’ll step on some toes along the way – who doesn’t? But as long as you’re open and humble to seeing it, I have no doubt that you’ll be able to find the place in the conversation that feels right to you.

    I think that many feminist forums are all women or women dominated and this is a great thing. We need a chance to find our own voices apart from men because we are so socialized to defer defer defer. I think that men also need to be exposed (if they’re willing to listen) to the difference between how women talk to them and how women talk to each other.

    More mixed forums and not fewer woman-dominated forums are what is necessary. More forums period, more newspapers, articles, magazines, shows, discussions, more feminist everything :)

  16. Tara: I really appreciate your comments. Here are the highlights–the radiant pearls of advice that I plan to seek out:

    “its unfortunate but true that a mans critique of patriarchy will be considered more credible than a womans. So critique and critique hard.”

    “its better to stick up for you form of feminism and to fight for it *against* patriarchy than against other feminists.”

    “youll step on some toes along the way – who doesnt?”

    “More mixed forums and not fewer woman-dominated forums are what is necessary. More forums period…”

    My first love is religious studies, so most of my feminist study falls within this realm. There is plenty of patriarchy to fight!

  17. Hi there:
    It is important for people to remember context when discussing something as controversial as feminism and patriarchy. Although women are embracing a new society, we are finding that our “attempts at equality” are falling short in a number of areas. To be equal, we MUST tap into the knowledge and strengths of our counterpart – males. We must learn to listen to one another and reflect on what people are saying before getting caught up in a power struggle that will benefit no one. Of course some women are still bitter because of the oppression of women in history. We are also very aware that everything we try to change politically, economically and socially is often misrepresented and discouraged by men. However, is it due to male power or is it because the individual involved who holds the power is an idiot? – whether it be male or female? I think we must find a balance – so that men and women can live, work and survive together – as an equal society – for the betterment of everyone. Have we gained equality over the past fifty years because women are now more involved in paid work outside the home? Not if they come home to take on the duties of taking care of everyone -preparing meals…clean up…laundry…household cleaning…finances… school planning….and on and on. Is that equality? Where is the father/husband? Sure, he’s had a long day – so has the wife. why then, does he get to sit down while the wife is taking care of the home as well as contributing to the household financial situation and working long hours outside the home? This, to me, is not equality, but rather more oppression, more stress for women and more injustice and inequality. I have a husband who is a feminist. We work together for the betterment of our family. He hates to do laundry, I hate to take out the garbage, so he takes out the garbage and I do the laundry. He cooks and we clean up together. I do the homework with my son while he prepares the lunches for the next day. THIS is what equality is all about!!! empowerment of each family member!!!

    that’s all for now!
    D.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>