Point of information: Feminist terminology

Why is it that within social justice and activist terminology Indigenous peoples, People of Colour, LGBTQ folks, persons with dis/abilities etc have allies accomplices who support and stand up for equity, while male-identifying folks (hereafter men for brevity) who regard themselves as feminists get to take on the label of feminist? Why do these men not become feminist accomplices?

Isn’t someone an accomplice because they do not face the oppression that those they are standing with do? Although I would agree that men are harmed by the heteronormative colonial patriarchy that encapsulates ‘Western’ society, they cannot be oppressed to the same extent as women because men literally embody systemic power as part of their male-ness.

Isn’t this somewhat antithetical? Why does the accomplice-ness of men get privileged–or so it seems–when it relates to feminist activism? Am I the only person who feels uncomfortable with how male-identified folks use (co-opt?) the phrasing to profess their support for equitable rights?

Is this something third-wave feminist theorists (e.g., bell hooks, Rebecca Walker, Audrey Lorde) discuss and I’m simply not aware of?

Evidently I have a lot of questions for 1:00 AM.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Observations on Life Outside of Academia and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s