I am really failing to understand how Choice USA's Bro-Choice campaign doesn't, as Alexandra observes at the link, "[attempt] to 'masculinize' a feminist effort so dudes can feel comfortable [and condescend] to the targeted men (who I'd imagine will join up because of their convictions, rather than a transparent gimmick and a 'p' switched out for a 'b') while simultaneously prioritizing them. The clear message is that guys can't be part of a generally woman-led movement, and we need to cater to their need to feel manly."
COOKIES! BRO-COOKIES!
Men can, and should, be pro-choice. Campaigns that seek to challenge the war on agency must be inclusive of people who don't neatly fit into the gender binary. Women and genderqueer people should not be deprioritized to "make space" for men in advocacy where there is already room for men, especially through borrowing the language of bro-culture, which is in many significant ways antithetical to the goals of empowering women and other people with uteri.
I couldn't be more in favor of men getting involved in pro-choice activism—for lots of reasons, not least of which is that leaving "women's work" to women is some richly ironic antifeminist shit.
But this type of campaign is not the way I want to see it happen. Not at all.
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus