White Man Tries (and Fails) to Comprehend Feminism

vs.

Modern society is littered with ambiguity. Indeed, you can't go anywhere these days without stepping in a gooey pile of ambivalence, causing you to question your morals at every turn. The culprit? A litany of social issues that prove time and time again that you are never right and that you're probably an asshole. The mature thing to do is to just accept that you've been wrong about a lot that you once assumed was right.

Enter Dewey Mullis, opinion writer for The Appalachian.

Mullis is just your average dude trying to wrap his head around this whole "feminism" thing. In a recent article that he wrote for the paper, Mullis spends several paragraphs scratching his head and trying to understand what feminism is. In a quest akin to Nicholas Cage's search for national treasure, Mullis pulls out all the stops to get to the bottom of our species' greatest mystery: women.

During his travels, Mullis stumbles across a dictionary, some people that also read the dictionary, and vague voices in his head that tell him that "men are pigs." The possibility of George Orwell's ghost aside, it would appear that Mullis is basing a large portion of his.....argument (?) on the ramblings of a minority. But we'll get to that later.

Our brave hero starts his journey with a disclaimer. 

Before the discussion gets foggy, let me clear the air. Women in the workplace deserve to make the same amount as their male counterparts. No one asks to get raped by wearing certain clothes or making certain decisions. Women should have control over their bodies – reproductive parts and processes included.

Well, that seems entirely reasonab-

What I don’t completely comprehend is feminism.

I....but you just....

There are definitions that differ between dictionaries, societies, political ideology and the spectrum of demographic categories. Reactions from onlookers, supporters and opposition are equally as varying.

I think this is where I tend to fall off of the feminism bandwagon. I can’t define it – for myself or for anyone.

Wait wait wait wait wait wait.....wait. So what you're saying is (and correct me if I'm wrong), unless *you* can define something for yourself, you can't ascribe to the ideology? And the reason you find yourself unable to define the movement is because there's just too many definitions? I can't help but notice that you are a criminal justice major. Law is going to be very difficult for you.

Look, literally anything is going to be varied from person to person. I could ask a hundred people what they think of hot dogs and get a hundred different responses. Variation in responses doesn't mean that I can't still enjoy hot dogs, however.

Then, the kicker. It is to build women up to the same playing field as men – the one they strive for and deserve. But then I hear, “men are scum,” or, “I hate men. They’re pigs.”

What? Equality just went out the window. 

 Yes, the one made-up feminist you heard about that one time spitting on a guy that opened the door for her is the spokesperson for the entire movement. Using these feminist boogeymen as a justification for hesitance in accepting the movement is a lot like freaking out over Muslims and blaming Al Qaeda. Fringe groups exist within any ideologically-driven effort, but assigning blame to the entire cause because of this is horribly ignorant.

Mullis spends the rest of his article bemoaning the lack of representation of men in the feminist movement and generally just missing the point entirely.

Men are parents and stay-at-home dads. We have fears and anxieties. Some things embarrass us and social expectations bar us from being upfront and totally honest. We have to man up. Rape culture among men is a hush-hush and men are gay, too. Men and women are not that far apart.

Somehow, feminism is to blame for our lack of acknowledgement of these things. I mean, male rape? If only an incredibly prominent feminist blog had addressed an issue like this! It would make this entire argument null and void. I mean, hell, what are the odds of that?

Oh.

Mullis, for all your musings about the movement, it doesn't seem like you've actually given it much thought beyond stereotypes you heard being spouted on the internet. People aren't feminists because they want to usurp men and replace all phallic shaped buildings with vagina altars. We're feminists because, as you mentioned, women in the workplace deserve as much as their male counterparts. Women have a right to control over their bodies. What a woman wears is not indicative of her willingness to have sex.

The reason there's no "movement for the sexes" is because men have nowhere to move. We're already at the top. I imagine you're also the kind of person that complains about there being no White History Month?

No one is saying that men have it perfectly and that there are literally no problems associated with possessing male genitalia. We're just saying that maybe it's worth treating the chick with the flu before you treat the guy with the cold.

I am all for freedom to express your opinion. It is, after all, my purview. That being said, I would expect a little more from a newspaper run by young, intelligent college students. The article is littered with logical fallacies and a general lack of evidence to support his claim. But I get that it's an opinion piece and not reflective of the paper's views. After all, I imagine this is a minority opinion among our progressive student body. But don't take it from me:

I honestly couldn't have said it better myself, Chuck.