CONTENTS 1 Men Failing at Feminism and the Exception of Condorcet 2 Misogyny of the Philosophes, Stewards of the Status Quo 3 Condorcet’s Feminist Writing 4 Condorcet’s Personal Relationships and Why He Became a Feminist 5 Condorcet’s Legacy Among the Philosophes    and the Value of His Feminism for Today’s Man   APPENDIX A Question of Terms: Feminist Over Pro-Feminist The 18th Century Clamor for Gender Equality: Forefathers and Foremothers of Contemporary Feminism The Early Struggle for Gender Equality: A Timeline About the Author/Works Cited

"Condorcet’s Legacy among the Philosophes and the Value of his Feminism for Today’s Man," Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 2008. (PDF article via essaysinhumanism.org)

A Question of Terms: Feminist Over Pro-Feminist

In the introduction to their book, Against the Tide: Pro-Feminist Men in the United States 1776-1990, editors Michael S. Kimmel and Thomas E. Mosmiller contend that only a woman can be labeled a “feminist.” They write that at its core, “feminism involves the empirical observation that women and men are not equal in either the public or the private sphere and also the moral stance that such inequality is wrong and ought to be changed.” To actually “be a feminist,” the authors argue, one must feel the experience of such oppression.1 I, however, believe that while nothing can substitute the direct experience of injustice, men’s ability to recognize and empathize with such circumstances and experiences are an acceptable substitute for the direct experiences uniquely endured by women. Moreover, men have a vested interest in feminism. Indeed, they have a salient role in its history as this site serves to commemorate.  

Another important point to consider is that women are not the only victims of sexist society. The prevailing view of man’s role in society hinders his human experience. He is caged by unrealistic archetypes and constantly expected to be the tough-skinned defender, never-flinching, never-crying, unemotional tough-guy straight-out of an action movie. The message he receives is that he should never address his emotional needs and discontents; he bares the emotional and physical burden of being expected, by many in society, to be “the” bread-winner, “the provider.”
There is another key consideration on the question of whether or not men should call themselves feminists: Feminism, as a philosophy, seems to me to have but one key requirement, which is adherence to its precepts. I think Webster’s Dictionary does a good job of giving us a definition that is difficult to argue with. “Feminism” is, above all, “the theory that women should have political, economic, and social rights equal to those of men.” Again turning to Webster’s, the definition of a “feminist” is one who advocates or supports this theory. By definition one is a feminist if one advocates for the equal rights of women.

Finally, the exalting the term “pro-feminist” over the direct, “feminist” is realized when one considers the implications of the “pro-feminist” line of reasoning. Would female advocates of equal rights living in a theoretical society of realized gender equality cease to be feminists and become pro-feminists? Do capitalists merely become pro-capitalist when living in a capitalist society? I think the answer to these questions is no. While it is difficult to discount the direct experience of a particular kind of injustice, the test which all must pass in order to be called a feminist should not merely be a question of sex. Instead, the test should ask, do you support absolute equality among the sexes in both the public and private realm? If the answer is yes, then one is a feminist.