Men and feminism through time: a historical layout of men's roles
Men are accused of "anti-feminism", women are accused of "extremism": this is an article that shows that both of those accusations have no historical validity. In fact, history brought forth some shocking revelations: Men were the feminists, women were unaware of their inferior state.
The most important discovery encountered was that during the 16th century, a time when the term "feminist" had not yet been coined, there were men that went the extra mile in order to claim women's rights. That's right. There were men that were aware of the situation of women long before the feminist movement began. And to make this revelation even more shocking, these same men fought to claim women's rights even before women.
The term "feminism" in itself is not of importance. But what it brought had made an impact, for it encouraged many women to come forward to claim their rights. There was a movement, a support system that wasn't as strong prior to the invention of the term. But history shows that some men did not need any initiative to notice that the gender balance was unequal. They didn't even need women to notice. However, in order to oppose to a gap that women themselves didn't mind, there had to be a manifestation that women had been subject to inequality. Thus the first wave of men who, unlike those of them who fought for women's' rights, considered the position and the state that women were in throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th century as "normal". Because oppressed women were the norm back then, no man stood out amongst those who spoke against women, only those who spoke for their benefit left an impact.
Who are these men? These historical figures that struck the first debates and conflicts regarding women and their rights? How and why did some of them realize that women were subject to discrimination, whereas others firmly rebuked any development in the state of women during those times?
The pre-"feminist" phase: examples of original male feminists:
There aren't enough lines to describe men who have taken it upon themselves to denounce the state women were in during the old times. But a clarification ought to be made. Not all of them sought equality, some of them claimed women as the superior sex, such as Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa in his book, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, published as early as 1529. But his works don't reflect the purpose of feminism.
The men that ought to be taken into consideration are those who saw through the misogyny of the societies they lived in. The likes of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa set aside, Francois Poullain de la Barre was the first ever male feminist. A well-known writer and philosopher of the late 17th, early 18th century, he saw the discrimination women were dealing with even before they did. What was so original about De la Barre was that the times he lived in offered close to no hope for women to be free of the cultural prison they had to be submitted to. He exposed the difficulties of being a woman of the 17th century in his book, Equality of the sexes, published in 1673. It was a time when women did not think of themselves worthy enough to be an active part of society. They preferred to be what most men wanted them to be: submissive.
De la Barre didn't miss a beat, he began his book with a warning of sorts, writing "This discourse will make many people unhappy, because everyone, those who have an education and those who do not, even women, take the liberty in saying that they could not possibly have anything to do in practicing science or being employed because they deem themselves as incapable to do so as well as less apt than men, and that they ought to be inferior to them (men) in all that they (women) do". And this introduction should be enough to transmit how trying it was for men like De la Barre to convince women that they deserve to be more. Women contended themselves in being inferior and had no doubts about their lesser place in society, de la Barre helped in shaping a better society for future generations of women. He made it clear just how important it was to educate them and give them the ability to stand out, to do more than just be the "obedient wife". He was a male, and he was a feminist, before female feminists appeared. He went straight into the core of the problem: culturization.
He affirmed, with this sentence, "the means and instruments are given only to men [...] whilst we leave women to languish in their idleness, weakness or ignorance, or to crawl in doing all that is [...] most vile" that the cultures and societies women lived in were a disease to their existence. They keep them from moving forward, giving men all the means to achieve, thus demeaning women.
If this article didn't hold the word "history" in its title, you would've thought Francois Poullain de la Barre was a modern author. Why? Because women are still faced with the same liability, especially in religious circles or politically conservative families.
He insisted that men needed to be kept in check, limiting their ability to limit women, concluding his discourse with a sentence that hit right where it should: "All that has been written by a man has to be suspected because he is both the judge and the witness".
Francois Poullain de la Barre was not the only male feminist that beat the feminist movement.
There are many technical definitions of the term "politics". But for every person who is well aware the role women have in politics, it can be defined as "a practice left to men's discretion". Women have never been considered "apt" or "qualified" to take part in political debates. That's why de la Barre encouraged education: to shun any attempt at making women seem like the inferior sex. There are many examples of the reprimandation of women in politics: be it the monarchies that abided by laws that only allowed men to access the throne, or the installation of a Republican regime that banned women access from participating in parliaments and governments: thus the example of France, a country that, following the revolutionary era, left no place for women in politics. And in that context intervened the next most important male feminist.
Nicolas de Condorcet was a politician, among other things. He participated in the French parliament following the revolution. His most significant opposition was the one directed at the "Declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen" of 1789: he accused the French system of staying true by the declarations' title: it was mostly guaranteeing the men's rights, not the women's. He began a series of protestations to grant women political rights, not just by protecting the liberties asserted by declarations or treaties, but also by allowing them to have the right to be included in the process of concluding them. He wanted women to be represented in parliaments, he wanted them to represent themselves.
Condorcet insisted, just like De la Barre, on the importance of education, because it enabled women to protest, to legitimize their positions. He went as far as promoting the building of a primary-level school for 400 children, secondary-level for 4000 and a university in each department (region).
After his death, that was assured by the tyrannical country that refused his ideals and wanted him eliminated, the gap he left was wide: a French decree declared "[...] they (women) are not amongst those who hold knowledge of politics".
Just as De La Barre had denounced cultural systems that discouraged women from taking an active role in society, Condorcet had died because he denounced (among other things) political systems that inferiorized women. And just as De La Barre's cause seems like one that can still be found in modern-day societies, Condorcet's cause is also found in modern-day countries: the most relevant example being the newest Lebanese Electoral Law that does not install a quota for women to be represented in the Parliament, thus erasing any chance for women to have a close-to-equal representation.
The post-"feminist" phase: The man who coined the term "feminism"
simpler times were gone because Charles Fourier, a French philosopher, had finally come during the 19th century, and with his will to establish a society that ran on a "merit system" and not a "gender-based system", he had invented a word. "F-e-m-i-n-i-s-m-e". Just as previously acknowledged, the word in itself couldn't have been of any importance, if it weren't for the echoes it left.
The women had risen gradually, accepting the truths that had been buried about their ability to be a part of a society without having to be in the lesser circle of it, and they found themselves bound together, wherever they are, by the depth of what feminism truly meant. Charles Fourier enabled us women today to identify ourselves as feminists.
Almost all of the women claiming their equal rights today classify themselves as feminists. It has been made possible to speak of the "history" of feminism, the "faces" of feminism, the "consequences" of feminism... Charles Fourier did what he could at the time in by siding with justice, but his influence was limited. However, that's not the case today. He hadn't done much, but, true as that may be, the depth of his work can be felt by considering the alternative: what would the women who label themselves as "feminists" identify to? This is one of the rare cases where categorizing people did well.
The true essence of what Charles Fourier did doesn't end here.
The fact that the word that women claiming their rights' identify to was coined by a man, is a truly funny thing. It's just a way to disrupt the stereotypical image of men being opposed to women in claiming their rights or men clinging to their masculinity and overlooking the state of discrimination women are in for the sake of it.
To conclude this article about a short history of the first male feminists and how they set the course of action of modern-day feminists (female AND male), what should be kept in mind is: No, men are not opposed to women claiming their rights. No, they aren't afraid of the image it gives of themselves. Yes, these men are a minority, and yes, they are overtaken by other men that still hold firm belief in the presence of the "inferior woman".
This article brings to light just how forgetful people are: today men are considered as unable to side with feminists or that they shouldn't, whereas some feminism roots find themselves in men's actions.
Feminism has existed through men. Does it still exist?