feminism: a form of resistance against patriarchal domination; the struggle to end sexist oppression. It is debatable and differs from person to person whether feminism applies only to people who identify as women or to oppressed peoples everywhere. Sometimes thought to be a lifestyle choice and political statement as demonstrated by 2nd-wave lesbian separatists, but bell hooks refutes the limitations of feminism as a lifestyle because feminist lifestyles (and separatism especially) are not always accessible to all women and they then become yet another role that women must choose to conform to in their daily lives.
According to hooks, feminism as an identity should be communally-based rather then individually-based and should remain political through one’s actions and not just one’s lifestyle choice.
Because the root of the word feminism, fem, is female-based, it follows that feminism equates to female activity; thus is it possible for men to do feminism? There remains much debate about whether men should be included in feminist struggle and movements.
Also, there is still much debate over feminism’s goals: does feminism mean liberation for some women, all women, all people? Does liberation for some mean oppression for others? Is it possible to abolish sexist oppression without also abolishing gender or capitalism? Cellestine Ware defines radical feminism as “working for the eradication of domination and elitism in all human relationships.” She goes on to say that this eradication “would make self-determination the ultimate good and require the downfall of society as we know it today.” (Woman Power, 3).
I think bell hooks’ articulation of feminism in its relation to Western culture is the most acute: “Feminism is a struggle to end sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels as well as a commitment to reorganizing society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.” (Feminist Theory Reader, 51).
A Feminist Theory Dictionary 
So, *is* feminist an identity for hooks? For you? And what role *should* men play in feminism?
Thanks for your thoughtful definition.
“Because the root of the word feminism, fem, is female-based, it follows that feminism equates to female activity; thus is it possible for men to do feminism? There remains much debate about whether men should be included in feminist struggle and movements.”
This debate–whether men have the capability to practice feminism–is troubling. It implies essentialisms in the man’s psyche: that men can’t but oppress, that men can’t be involved with the feminist movement without dominating, that men can’t understand female suffering.
It makes one wonder to what end the anti-male feminists strive? Is it a world free of oppression? Is it a world in which power relations are flipped?
It’s unfortunate that in the service of destroying essentialisms about women, feminists employ totalizing narratives about men…
To reply to Kate’s comment:
I don’t think hooks likes the concept of a feminist identity, and in her article she suggests instead of saying she’s a feminist, to say that she advocates feminism to encourage discussion surrounding the term. I really like this approach to feminism and think it would help to get a lot of conversations going regarding feminism and feminist goals and issues, in the place of false feminist stereotypes perpetuated by a lack of conversation about feminist identities and issues.
For me personally, to identify as a Feminist has different meanings depending on the context. I don’t think feminism should always and inherently be an identity for the reason that women do not need one more role they are challenged to fulfill in their lives. But I would claim a feminist identity in certain contexts, for example to demonstrate solidarity with other feminists.
I think men should definitely play a big part in feminism, and despite the misleading root of the word feminism, I think it is possible for men to be feminists. However, I think women should have women-only spaces within the feminist movement to reaffirm their feminist solidarity and also to make men question their access to the world that is given to them based on their privilege.
To reply to Lauren’s comment:
I didn’t mean to imply that by using the root “fem-” that men don’t have the capacity to practice feminism, I was simply trying to discuss what seems like a fundamental conflict between the root of the word feminism and how it automatically leaves men out of the equation. I don’t doubt that men have the capacity to be feminists, to support the feminist movement without oppressing or dominating. However, I do kind of doubt that men can ever completely understand “female suffering”… Will men ever know how it feels to walk down a street alone at night and almost never feel safe? Or to know that if Roe v. Wade ever gets repealed, we will lack control over our own bodies?? To me, these are simply two cornerstones of the many struggles women face in this country, and in my eyes it is unlikely that men will ever be able to fully relate to women’s experience in this way. (However, I reserve the right to change my mind! This is just my initial thinking on the subject.) I agree with you, Lauren, that essentializing men in the process of trying to unessentialize women is unfortunate, and I think we need to be very aware of these essentializing statements. I hope this clears things up…
Here is a short but awesome interview from Girlistic.com with author Shira Tarrant about the issue of men within feminism:
http://girlistic.com/blog/blogs/index.php?blog=2&title=shira_tarrant_men_as_feminists&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Page 2 is really relevant & I think Tarrant does an excellent job of articulating these issues.
“I understand feminism to be a social justice movement that wants to bust down the walls of constraint and conformity. Feminism is about gender justice. We know that gender is a social construct. This is part of feminist knowledge. So then how could somebody reasonably say, “My movement is only for certain people with certain body parts or certain hormonal balances or certain wardrobes”? That’s some serious gate-keeping.
As long as the goals and interests of feminism are focused on social justice we’re all in it together. This includes all people along the gender continuum.”
For me, a white, anglo saxon, middle class dude, my limited study of feminism says, in one sentence: Feminism is about challenging assumptions about sex.
The role men play? I’d say no official voice in the movement, but partners in activism. I have no right to equal voice in a group that seeks to represent women. I mean, I don’t expect to have an official voice in the democracy of land I am not a citizen of, but I’m happy to help if I’m asked.