Lynn Beisner knows her husband isn’t the perfect feminist, but he is the best man she could imagine loving.
Recently a friend of mine wrote a Facebook post blasting people who use water bottles and plastic shopping bags. I have to admit that I do both. Her blast made me feel judged, defensive and consequentially hostile towards environmentalism for a few minutes.
The problem lies not with my ideals, but with my habits and my nature. I am the stereotypical absent-minded professor. I am always preoccupied. On my own, I am stymied by things as basic as recycling. The complexity of sorting trash is beyond my capability. I can barely sort my laundry and keep up with that. Fortunately, our house is green in that regard because Pete has figured out a system for making recycling effortless for me.
But I am an environmentalism failure in two of the most visible ways, the very things my friend railed against. I simply cannot remember to bring with me my own water in an eco-friendly reusable container. And even if I could, I would misplace the damn thing by noon. The same is true for those wonderful cloth shopping bags. I buy them, but my absent-mindedness and disorganization means I never end up using them. For years, I struggled with the cognitive dissonance between what I believe and what I am actually able to do.
In the all-or-nothing thinking proposed by many environmentalist, I am what is wrong in the world. They see me as selfish, silly, ignorant or immoral. And faced with the disapproval from my environmentalist friends, I become defensive. Over time I’ve started to see their green ethical practices as something that only those not living in the real world could achieve.
Then, last year, a wonderful environmentalist friend of mine told me something very important. She encouraged me to give up perfection and to think of ways that I could make small improvements and offset the harm that I was doing.
After careful consideration, I decided that how I would offset the way that I was harming the planet was by ripping out every square inch of grass on my property. Suburbia, with the acres of grass and asphalt is a desert for birds, bees and butterflies. Without butterflies and bees, life as we know it on earth will end. As it happens, I love the physicality of gardening, and I am relatively good at it. I have chosen to offset the harm that I do by planting two gardens, one for vegetables, but another much larger one that was designed entirely to be an oasis for butterflies and bees. I have yet to expand my gardens to eradicate all grass, but I am about 80% there. I am clearly making a difference. Our entire block is now buzzing with life, where two years ago it was nothing but arid, lifeless suburban landscaping.
♦◊♦
The old saying is true: the perfect is the enemy of the good. And nowhere does this seem truer than in feminism. Some of us have adopted feminist purity standards by which we judge each other and everyone else. And while it is true that there is a special place in hell reserved for women who do not support each other, I am also very worried that some of us have created a standard for male supporters and partners that few can ever reach.
I am concerned about the criticism I hear about men as partners. For example, I agree with Hugo Schwyzer that it is reasonable to want a man who is not overly needy. But human beings are flawed. And as flaws go, isn’t neediness a relatively forgivable one and one far more easily remedied than misogyny or a genuine belief in the essential inferiority of women?
It seems to me that by far, the women who are most contemptuous of men are disillusioned traditionalists. They begin with unrealistic expectations for a knight in shining armor. Then, when they are disappointed or betrayed by one man, their belief that all men are the same makes them critical of the lot. Fortunately, feminist women tend not to have the unrealistic expectations that traditionalist women have, and they understand that gender is not what makes a person trustworthy and good.
Still, when I listen to some of my feminist friends and colleagues talk about their relationships, I am concerned about how hard they are on the men in their lives. What is more, I am concerned by how critical they encourage each other to be. Rather than having unrealistic expectations of the white knight variety, they have the expectation that men raised in a sexist society will be able to completely and immediately change all of the assumptions, attitudes and behaviors they were raised with.
♦◊♦
What I find most telling is how other women respond when I talk about my husband. Most are either in awe or disbelieving. I cannot tell you how often I am told that I am incredibly lucky to have found such a great man. They say this as if I have bagged a unicorn. Some of my feminist friends react with outright skepticism. They cannot believe that a man exists who is as loving and good as I describe Pete. I have had women tell me plainly that they believe I am somehow brainwashed by patriarchy or that Pete must be deceiving me.
To be fair, I value loyalty above everything else in a marriage, and I place a very high premium on kindness. So I only discuss problems with my husband or my children when I am looking for help resolving the issue. That means that everything people hear about my kids and husband has gone through my kindness and loyalty filters. But I am not bragging or exaggerating. How I talk about Pete reflects my experience of being his wife; he really is kind, loyal and supportive. It also reflects my true feelings about him. I am every bit as besotted with him and as entirely bowled over by his goodness as I seem.
The sad thing is, I feel disloyal to my feminist friends and to feminism as an institution when I confess how loved and loving I feel in my relationship with my husband. Because the truth is, he is an imperfect feminist. He still has some very sexist ideas. But then again, he is a descendent of the Daughters of the Mayflower, the great-great grandson of general who engaged in ethnic cleansing, and the son of an arch supporter of McCarthyism. For him to incorporate ideas of liberalism and equality effortlessly and intuitively would be nothing short of miraculous. For the love of God, when I married the man he was a card-carrying Republican and a member of a group that taught men how to have non-egalitarian relationships. The concept of righting the wrongs of inequality was as foreign to him as the environment and nature were to me. He is still learning to think in a non-patriarchal way. Of course he does not always get it right. He said something so breathtakingly sexist the other day that I had to get out of the shower and leave him to finish scrubbing his fun bits all by himself.
Just like I have harmed the planet with my plastic water bottles and shopping bags, Pete has hurt women, including me. We have had some rough moments and even briefly separated because of some of the hurtful things that he has done. But he has tried to offset the harm he has done by making amends. Pete’s growing feminism and his conscious efforts at offsetting harm have made a difference. His love for me is so deep, his loyalty is so fierce, and his support is so sincere and stalwart that he has created that an oasis in our family that supports life, much like my butterfly garden does. He makes my work possible, and has helped me raise two of the most effortlessly feminist human beings that I know.
I have had several friends tell me that they want to clone Pete. I understand that they are lonely and that they want what I have. I wish that every person were as loved and supported as I am. But it saddens me to think that they feel a need to reproduce one good man when there are millions of others who are equally good. I don’t believe that I am being naive or anti-feminist when I say that I believe the majority of men are like Pete. They may not be able to do the feminist equivalent of eschewing plastic water bottles and shopping bags, but they build butterfly gardens, oases that sustain life. They are imperfect but striving, and consciously creating offsets for the harm that they do. And when we demand feminist perfection from men, we become enemies of their goodness.
Excellent article, Ms. Beisner!
Thank you for writing it.
There are plenty of good men (whether or not they pass ideological purity tests), who try diligently to be good husbands, partners, or fathers. Who do so quietly and without any fanfare. Like your Pete. “…the perfect is the enemy of the good.” Indeed.
Thank you for your awareness, and your kindness,
CM
I’m crying reading this article. Thank you Lynn for try to understand us, men. Its beautiful and honest, one of the best article on GMP i have ever read.
Don’t cry John, it’s very ‘unmanly’.
No bobbt it’s not just a blanket crying is unmanly. Crying is only unmanly when it’s for a reason that someone deems to not be “good enough” by their standards.
Thus the guy that cries over the death of a loved one is so “emotionally free” and all that while the guy that is so pissed he cries because he doesn’t know what else to do is not a “real man”.
Long story short John is okay along as everyone else thinks he’s okay but if they don’t like what he’s crying about then all hell shall break loose.
“I’m pretty convinced that women are more swayed by the traditional type of man (if he isn’t being a jerk – and I didn’t want the ones who liked jerks) than the ostentatiously feminist ones.” I think there are some theories about patriarchy that are based on quite traditional ideas about “what men are really like,” so those variants of feminism tend to perpetuate those ideas even as they attempt to challenge patriarchy. One explanation I’ve heard about patriarchy is that it’s a kind of emotional compensation – men are ultimately so needy and so childlike and so dependent on… Read more »
Having come of age before this wave of feminism, and dated before and after it, I’m pretty convinced that women are more swayed by the traditional type of man (if he isn’t being a jerk – and I didn’t want the ones who liked jerks) than the ostentatiously feminist ones. I had many things to overcome in my life, and the last thing I wanted was to be lectured around the house by the person I was with. And I never really have been, on feminist grounds anyway. I do support moderate feminism in macro (economic and social justice,) but… Read more »
Does your husband identify as a feminist? I see you identify him as a feminist, albeit an imperfect one, throughout your article, and you also identify your two boys as feminists. However, do they identify themselves as such? I’m just wondering if this would be akin to my father thinking I’m a good christian (I’m an atheist) because of the good christian values he sees in me, feels he may have instilled in me in my upbringing, and not whether or not I identify as such. My father does not think this, and I would hope you are not placing… Read more »
Excellent questions. I hadn’t even thought of that. How do these men define _themselves_?
Lynn, You make two comments that (to me) are on opposite ends of the spectrum. The first (I’m referencing, not 1st in order): “Rather than having unrealistic expectations of the white knight variety, they have the expectation that men raised in a sexist society will be able to completely and immediately change all of the assumptions, attitudes and behaviors they were raised with.” The second: “I am concerned about the criticism I hear about men as partners. For example, I agree with Hugo Schwyzer that it is reasonable to want a man who is not overly needy.” You later throw… Read more »
Well damn. This sums up a good amount of the criticisms a good number of people have with feminism. I daresay this is probably the best comment that was posted on the internet today. It seems to me I keep seeing evidence that equality and embracing men’s humanity take a back seat even among those feminists (male or female) when they are faced with men becoming non-useful and high maintenance (i.e. *human* and in need of help). Which is what I’ve been wondering for a long time. They say they want equality for men as well but it seems to… Read more »
Thanks Danny for your response. You are quite correct in your clarification that even with depressurization of male stoicism that it would not necessarily follow that there would be just as many emotionally needy men as women. I totally agree that in a society that encourages men to be emotional, that the culture shouldn’t then turn around and condemn men who’s emotions start hitting the high rpms. For my 2 cents, I have found feminist men to be some of the most macho bluster filled men. I have also found them to be bullies and simply the next gen in… Read more »
Hugo’s article doesn’t even make sense, because complaining of emotionally needy men is a tradcon perspective, not a feminist one (at least not a perspective of most of the feminists who post at tgmp who I respect like Heather N and Julie and Lisa). I’ll agree that feminists may not have created that perspective but I’m pretty sick of “but feminists didn’t start it!” being passed as excuse for the bad behaviors of feminists. It doesn’t fly when today’s men talk about how they didn’t create the behaviors that today’s men engage in so how does it fly when feminists… Read more »
Hah! I told you I would have an evil genius way of figuring out if you read the comments. Because now that you have seen this, you won’t be able to keep a straight face when I ask you if you have read any more comments. You may now applaud my clever plan. Just so you know, I have read these comments. And I can’t believe that these are the people who are making you fall apart. You made it through thousands of people telling you to go abort yourself and you survived when half of England hated that article… Read more »
” Now STOP READING THE COMMENTS. ” Why? I find often the commentary much more interesting than the article itself. Yes, some comments are exagerated, some are hatefull others are written by fanboys/girls. But the commentary in general help in placing the article in perspective. It is obvious that the articulist is not the alpha and omega of the human civilitation (not talking about this article, but in general) so reading comments, helps actually to better understand the multiple faces of the reality. If somebody (talking about this site ) write women experience always X, then it is intersting to… Read more »
I didn’t think of it as an anti-male diatribe, either. Not exactly. I took offense for what I perceived to be a more subtle, unstated set of assumptions. It read to me like someone being generous to an inferior. For me, the language of appreciation in the article sounded very much like “despite” more than “because of.” Despite the way my husband still is sometimes, I still love him, as hard as that is for any of my friends to believe. Now that he thinks more like I do, I’ve come to appreciate him. I haven’t trained him fully yet,… Read more »
I hear you, but this one didn’t push my buttons the way it did yours. I agree it’s “despite” rather than “because of” language, but the oasis metaphor softens that because the oasis metaphor is about loving *herself* despite her flaws, not because of them. It’s an generous “despite”, not a disappointed “despite”. Despite the way my husband still is sometimes, I still love him, as hard as that is for any of my friends to believe. That’s opposite what she said, which was that women respond with either disbelief that he can be so good, or that they want… Read more »
I see your point. I concede that past a certain point I may have stopped listening very carefully. I was reacting a bit like:
“The glass is half empty, dammit! Can’t you all see that? Aren’t you outraged by the empty part? Why is everyone talking about the part that’s half full? Are you brainwashed? Typical anti-water propaganda….”
Wow. I gave this a very different reading than most of the commenters so far, including several who I frequently agree with. I did not read it as a judgmental diatribe against a husband for not being a perfect feminist, whatever that is. I read it as a love story. It started with an acknowledgement of her own imperfections on a matter of principle (environmentalism), what it inspired her to do about it (create an oasis at home), and how she recognized and loved the same sort of thing in her husband. The example the article focused on was feminism,… Read more »
Marcus,
If you had read the exact same piece except that “feminism” was replaced with “Republican” would you be as generous with your praise? If the author explained that her husband hurt people *by virtue of not being a Republican* would you still think this was a great piece?
The problem is that the author has chosen to praise her husband for how closely he matches up to a divisive ideology. Your reading glosses over this entirely.
In her example of her own imperfection, she describes having done environmental harm, even though she’s an environmentalist. That serves as a basis for empathy toward her husband who she thinks has done harm, *even though* he’s a feminist. It’s not “by virtue of not being a feminist”. That boils down to a “nobody’s perfect” message, which I agree with whether the person saying it is a feminist, a Republican, a Christian, or whatever. Despite the ambiguous title, this is not a piece demanding that men be perfect feminists. It’s about it being a more reasonable and loving thing *not*… Read more »
“Fortunately, feminist women tend not to have the unrealistic expectations that traditionalist women have
Read more at https://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/demanding-feminist-perfection-from-men.”
This doesn’t match my experience. Feminist women can often have very traditionalist expectations of men.
It could still be literally true that a feminist will not have the same unrealistic expectations. She could have a whole NEW set of unrealistic expectations. The new set could be even MORE unrealistic. Not all change is for the better.
In response to Archy and bobbt:
I think there are multiple kinds of feminism. There are several “feminisms” out there. A “feminist” marriage could be egalitarian. Another “feminist” marriage could be matriarchal, which is my impression of Pete’s marriage. It depend on which subdivision we’re talking about.
” I think there are multiple kinds of feminism. There are several “feminisms” out there. A “feminist” marriage could be egalitarian. Another “feminist” marriage could be matriarchal, which is my impression of Pete’s marriage. It depend on which subdivision we’re talking about.”
I agree, I also get that impression.
JE, Im sure you noted just like I did, what type of man Lynn ‘just happened’ to marry – rrrred-meat masculinity babie 😉 . He still has some very sexist ideas. But then again, he is a descendent of the Daughters of the Mayflower, the great-great grandson of general who engaged in ethnic cleansing, and the son of an arch supporter of McCarthyism. For him to incorporate ideas of liberalism and equality effortlessly and intuitively would be nothing short of miraculous. For the love of God, when I married the man he was a card-carrying Republican and a member of… Read more »
There is a book published a few years ago by an ideological comrade of yours that might help, it’s called ” how to make your man behave in 21 days or less ” using secrets from professional dog trainers by Karen Salmansohn. !!!
Seriously, I can’t make that up if I tried? ??
But by the way the her man did end up leaving her in the end, since at least most men are loyal & kind like dogs but not exactly like dogs.
It makes no sense. If you want to be married to a dog, then get a dog. They don’t eat as much as a full-grown man, they won’t vote for the wrong candidate, and you can get them fixed without their consent. And, you’ll never be stuck with one for more than 15 years or so. Like I said before, women need to own their assumptions. If you think men are dogs, then get a dog instead.
It makes absolute sense ,Sir, look at it from the point if view :” benefits versus risks” .
Feminist is as feminist does. The touchstone for me is where a person puts his money & time. The more he uses these to help womens’ causes, the more feminist he is. Personal relationships, unless abusive, belong behind closed doors.
I haven’t heard many feminists supportive of the idea of financial abortion yet I’ve had many asking me to support abortion for women. Are feminist women’s expectations real? Many expect me to support their rights, issues, etc, but I don’t see as many supporting men’s rights, issues, etc. Do you fight for his right to financial abortion, ending conscription and selective service? degenderizing abuse campaigns and laws to give equal protection to women AND MEN? Do you call out the misandrist/sexist people/parts of feminism? What I see most commonly are feminists asking men to help them, men to support them,… Read more »
Archy, that’s because there is a misunderstanding about feminism. Many believe that feminism is about equal rights when in fact it’s about womens rights. This in itself is not a bad thing as I have 3 grown daughters who had many carrear paths open to them as a result of feminism. The term Egalitarian Feminism is to me, an oxymoron (you know, like Jumbo Shrimp, Military Intellegence,etc.). Hey, maybe when they control everything, they’ll throw us a bone!
I want to disagree, but I do feel that feminists (as the name suggests) are focused on women’s issues. They of course NEED men to be on board to get the sweeping changes they want. They entice men by pointing out the ways a gender egalitarian and liberated (i.e. men and women are equals, and free to do what they want regardless of gender) society would benefit men. The theory is there, but I don’t really see the practice of helping men. I feel the need for some kind of men’s liberation movement. It would use feminist and queer theory… Read more »
I think you are forgetting how any & every movement started before it took of & changed its surroundings, it looks rough, radical, some mistakes along the way, immature, but if the message is true, justified & needed it always found to grow.
Let me remind you that most people who witnessed these movements in the past thought that these people were crazy radicals & Lonnie’s.
@Archy ” What I see most commonly are feminists asking men to help them, men to support them, men to help fight for women’s issues yet quite frankly I see very few feminists seemingly giving a damn to fight for male issues. I reallly want to be proven wrong, I desire that so much, but I truly do still believe the majority of feminists want more support from men, but aren’t willing to give equal support to the men. I see far more of the gynocentric feminist expecting men to fight for women’s issues, who will say they are too… Read more »
I’m not holding my breath for one, the whole experience of finding the answer has left me feeling sad for the state of gender affairs. I see so much support for women and fuckall for men. Oh well, hopefully in the future I may see things like male abuse n female perpetration taken seriously, reproductive rights, etc for men (and of course for women too, fuckoff republicans trying to take them away for women).
It is not clear to me what this article actually says, so here are some questions, whose answers might help outsiders like me understand what the author talks about.
1.What is the definition of a “perfect feminist”?
2.Where does this definition come from?
3.Why should one aspire to be a perfect feminist?
4.Who is competent to judge how well somebody measures against the ideal of “perfect feminist”?
Answers from anybody to these questions is appreciated.
There of course is a LONG history of feminist thought and writing which critiques the current behaviors of people and suggests an alternative. A perfect feminist would presumably be familiar with almost all of that, and would then change their behavior accordingly. A perfect feminist would NEVER do anything even remotely sexist. Sexist being thoughts, words, or actions that are believed to lead to a culture harmful to women, or directly harmful to women, as theorized by various feminist thinkers and sociologists. Unfortunately there are different branches of feminism that don’t always get along, so being the perfect feminist for… Read more »
Thank you for the response, Quatuminc. I still have a problem with the last paragraph, about why one would want to be a feminist. If you believe tht feminist ideas are good, you want to be a feminist and you actually are a feminist, albeit an imperfect. Usually adherents to any ideology X don’t want to be a perfect Xist, because their own moral compass is in conflict with some parts of the ideology, this obviously would be true for feminism too. Your definition of perfect feminist: “A perfect feminist would NEVER do anything even remotely sexist. Sexist being thoughts,… Read more »
Yeah, this guy Pete , it doesn’t sound like he has it easy. Say the ‘wrong’ thing ,or express a ‘wrong’ thought. Even if it’s the way you feel about something, and you must ‘make amends’. Sounds like he’s living on a ‘One Way Street’.
I felt the same way. I feel a lot of sympathy for him. I see similarities to my own past, which may be why I got so worked up. But, I also want to be consistent. I don’t think he’s a victim, necessarily. He’s making choices, he has options, and there’s something he’s getting from that relationship. For all I know, he enjoys being in the position that he’s in. Just because I would feel horrible in that relationship doesn’t mean he does. I don’t believe there is such a thing as “brainwashing,” certainly not in his case. He still… Read more »
Spoiler alert about a great work of literature. I’m reminded quite a bit of Orwell’s _Animal Farm_ here, how revolutionaries often act once they’ve overthrown the old regime, how the new boss can be awfully similar to the old boss. For example, a feminist-dominated household could in many ways look quite similar to a patriarchal household in its basic structure. If I were to re-write the book, I have some great ideas from this article for what the pigs (who take over the farm) will say at the end. I can see the new owners of the farmhouse talking about… Read more »
Trying to be concrete, objective, and own my own stuff without being in trigger mode. Here goes: First of all, if no one has suggested this yet, I recommend you expand your circle of friends to include people who are not so judgmental, ideologically blinkered, and self-righteous. People who can look up from their own navels once in a while and see a larger perspective. Eco-dogmatism and feminist-dogmatism are really not much different from religious dogmatism. Try other drinks besides the Kool-Aid. Second, and relatedly, think about what this means for your relationship with your husband, if you surround yourself… Read more »
Hmm, serial killers must have the lowest carbon footprints then. They remove polluters from the world? This logic can get pretty extreme:P
Indeed, a really nasty road down in that direction. I would make a moral distinction between preventing the existence of people before they ever exist (Malthus’ “preventive checks”) and killing them once they do exist (Malthus’ “positive checks”).
Ironically (or not), genocide tends to be the bigger polluters killing the lesser polluters, so the biggest mass murders have not been the most effective in this way.
So I won’t be going to heaven after that statement:P But yeah, slippery slope. I just hope the biggest polluters find new ways to lower pollution……fusion power is the holy grail for lowering pollution teamed with good batteries for cars.
I “and men” instead of “each other”.
I am very torn about this article. It reminds me of the first time I read something by Hugo Schwyzer (probably because he is mentioned explicitly in the piece). The reasoning is good, and I want to agree, and that makes me want to engage. Yet the premises are so unbelievably terrible that I’m left feeling like no amount of engagement would ever be productive. On the one hand, it’s impossible to know what Pete has said that supposedly rises to the level of “hurts women” as opposed to “hurt a woman.” As such, I have to conclude that it’s… Read more »
One troubling thing about women (sometimes) is that they (sometimes) seem to have an infinite capacity for imposing controls on themselves and each other. This is why feminism often feels strange to men, I think. We’re norm resisters, and I think that that’s healthy. It opens us up for creativity. So I think that you can be too prosocial. Women are very creative too, but they’re far too other-directed much of the time.
I think you’re onto something here. It’s not just imposing controls, but also perfectionism. I think, ironically, that self-directed perfectionism is something that many feminists have inherited from patriarchy. Getting women to constantly measure themselves against an impossible ideal is supposed to be one of the great oppressive tools of patriarchal media, so it’s ironic that mindset has been imported into the search for a post-patriarchal world. I think women can be much harder on themselves than men are, and I suspect that the author’s friends’ perfectionism towards men is a spillover of their perfectionism towards themselves. Perfectionism can be… Read more »
I wrote has not is hurting women. And I will not divulge the specifics of my husband’s life, but he has talked about his regret at having hurt more than one woman. That makes it plural, not universal. I am in no way accusing him of harming women in general.
I appreciate the distinction.
About two years ago Hugo Schwyzer engaged in a dialogue with members of The F Word, a group of radical feminists. A great deal of their ideas involved ways that, according to them, men hurt women, as a whole, through everyday speech and actions. Ever since then I’ve been painfully aware of the difference between “He has hurt women,” meaning that his actions have hurt more than one individual woman, and the idea of “He has hurt women” meaning that his actions hurt women writ large.
I believe it’s hard to untangle the “he dominates women” idea from the “he supports women” idea. It wasn’t too long ago that the ideal was the family unit, with the woman (usually) being the homemaker. Stresses against the family (divorce, etc.) plus the fact that wages have fallen in absolute terms have dumped women into the labor market. A single wage no longer supports a family. Also, many women from education and interest want to work outside the home. My hunch is that many gripes, though, about how men treat women come from the residuals of the previous culture.… Read more »
To use the metaphor again: With environmentalism you don’t have to point to a specific dead or hurt animal to claim that creating trash or releasing CO2 is harmful. These things lead to a generally toxic environment. Each individual act is insignificant, but repeated daily by everyone everywhere it can and does harm the whole world. To be clear: Usually when feminists talk about harming women they are referring to actions that lead to a toxic culture. One could endlessly debate what it means for a culture to be toxic, but generally here it is one that makes it easier… Read more »
@QuantumInc
Yep, you are right being called a bitch constantly can be create a toxic environment at the same time I believe due to ideology, you same to discount what males experience on a regular basis , like being called a rapist, pig, sexist, misogynist & a loser if they don’t live up to the still expected Alpha male or any variation of it ,Sir/Madam/Miss, .
These words & the environment they create might explain what is called toxic masculinity (Suicides, violence, get rich or die trying, …etc.
I think you are confusing being egalitarian, humanist who believes in decency & treating others as he or she likes to be treated with feminism which is an ideology or a political prospective.
As a human being (male or female) I do not necessarily have to believe in feminism period at least not according to some of it’s radical anti-male provisions.
Striving to be a good husband, man or a decent human being in general does not dictate being a feminist (male or female).
Good point. Egalitarian and feminist are not the same thing, though a lot people still get them confused.
I love this, Lynn. The metaphor of your imperfect recycling and compensating with a suburban oasis was beautifully constructed, and I think the whole message generalizes well and covers much more than just the standards of feminism you hold your husband to. I loved that example, of course, but I think this could apply regardless of gender, and to a variety of standards we’re constantly judging our loved ones by. Beautifully written.
As a radical in the late 60s – 70s, I quickly learned to take liberal/left culture with a grain of salt. There were thousands of items on the boycott list when I was a student, and if you were observed with one of them, you could get busted. This led to my current notion that the personal can get too political, and that the current attention to the individual level precludes us from seeing and reacting to the big picture. So I currently call myself a libertarian at the personal level and a socialist at the political level. I think… Read more »
I absolutely love this post. I have been married for 25 years to a man not unlike Pete. Committed, loyal, kind, supportive, and trying to understand how to make his way in the world where feminism has changed the rules in a way with which he agrees but was not raised. So our roles are not balanced as I would have wished. He couldn’t really see my struggle as I was working self-employed, doing most of the day-to-day parenting, and housework, going to graduate school. But he believed in my goals and my right to have them. He believed in… Read more »