What does male allyship mean for gender equality? 

Written by Cassidy Clark

On 24th June 2021, I attended the event organized by WOMAG “Ask Us Anything: What Male Allyship Means for Gender Equality”. 

I decided to attend because I wanted to learn from others’ perspectives on the topic. I consider myself to be a feminist-in-progress, and I recognize that I exist in a bit of an echo-chamber. So I was curious to see how discussion of feminist issues could look and feel in a workplace environment.  

Perhaps it goes without saying that the session sparked more questions for me than answers (if only issues as complex as sexism could ever be cracked in the span of one conversation…). Here were some of the thoughts and takeaways that the session sparked for me. 

Building shared understanding, despite our blindspots

A discussion question asked at the beginning of the session was “what is sexism?” I thought it was an overly basic question to start with, but then I quickly began to feel that the answers shared had so much depth to them that discussion of just that question could have taken up the full two hours.

Some men and women offered their own definitions of sexism and anecdotes of how they had personally experienced (or perpetuated) it in their day-to-day lives. 

The first person to offer their definition said, “sexism is discriminatory behaviour against women”. Internally, I could feel myself bristling against this definition, my mind rehearsing critiques of how it was inadequate and exclusionary. Another definition shared was, “sexism is a system of gender-based discrimination,” which also didn’t quite seem to capture the personal side of experiencing sexism.

My own understanding of sexism is shaped by own personal experiences as well as being profoundly influenced by Black feminist philosophy I encountered during a college course I took -- the work of bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Audre Lorde and Patricia Hill Collins have been particularly revolutionary to the way I think. My current understanding of sexism is that it is a system of gender-based oppression, one of the many overlapping systems of power that structures our societies, and which manifests/perpetuates through our values, experiences, and behaviours. 

I caught myself wanting to chime in to the conversation with my view, but I stopped myself. I was here to listen and learn, not to have a “correct” conversation. And in any case, who is to say that I have the most “correct” and enlightened understanding of these issues myself?

Defining “sexism” is not a trivial matter of semantics. It’s important because the way we name a problem frames the actions we take to address it. The way we name and diagnose a problem says a lot about us, as well; it reveals our own positionality, and how we encounter the world. It reveals what we can and cannot see. 

This led me down a rabbit hole reflecting about how I don’t believe we all mean the same thing when we say something is “sexist” (or what it means to be an “ally”). That itself is an issue worth addressing. 

Given the many facets of our identities (such as our race, economic class, age, gender, ability, sexual orientation, etc.) and how they overlap, each of us encounter sexism in different ways and to different degrees. This is what I understand to be the essence of ‘intersectionality’, a term coined by the feminist scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989.

Given my own social positioning and multiple privileges, my own understanding of sexism (as well as other systems of prejudice and oppression) surely has blindspots as well. This leads me to the critical questions of, how might we bridge the gap between people who experience sexism differently? And how might we build shared understandings of sexism, in its multitude of meanings, that adequately names people’s experiences, and more importantly, orients us all towards a liberatory path of action? 

Having more sensitive and respectful conversations about it, like this one, seems like a good starting point. 

The ongoing process of allyship 

Another moment that stood out to me from the session was when the facilitator asked, “in what instances have men been (or not been) allies to you? How could/should men be allies in that situation?”

A man shared an example with the group of how he had been invited to moderate a panel. Then, when he was posting about the event on his social media, someone rightly pointed out that it was a “manel” (ie a panel of all male speakers), and expressed their disappointment in him for not noticing. 

That incident sharpened his awareness by highlighting one of his blindspots. He’s been more conscious of it since, and actively working to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

During the session we also spoke about the Spectrum of Allyship. There are many versions of the concept, but the spectrum shared during the presentation had the stages of Apathetic, Aware, Active, and Advocate. People move through these stages in their journeys to become a better ally. 

Apathetic: clueless and disinterested regarding gender issues

Aware: has some grasp of the issue but not active in addressing them

Active: well-informed and willing to take action, but only when asked

Advocate: routinely and proactively championing gender inclusion  

Hearing the man’s story, and revisiting the concept of the Spectrum of Allyship, reminded me that allyship is not a static destination to be reached. Rather, it’s an ongoing skill to be practiced. A process of sensitively correcting and being accountable for your blindspots, then translating that into genuine action. It’s also not just about your own understanding; it’s about bringing others with you on your learning journey. 

It also reminded me about what progress looks like when it comes to allyship. It’s not possible to sidestep the earlier stages. For example, if you’re not Aware of an issue, how can you possibly be an effective Advocate? 

I found the spectrum of allyship to be a useful temperature gauge for myself -- where is my level of understanding on issues and what more can I be doing in my commitment to allyship?

I also found it to be a useful tool for bringing others on a learning journey with me -- at which stage on the spectrum of allyship is the person I am speaking to? What can I provide in order to move their needle forward?

What’s next? 

The concluding question of the session was, “how can we incite change beyond ourselves? What is, can, and should be done in our organizations?” 

I was glad to see the conversation shift to the realm of action. I thought, shouldn’t that be the point of such conversations? 

In many ways, discussions such as these necessarily precede action. Again, how can we know that our advocacy will fruitfully address a problem if we’re not even yet fully Aware of (or care about) the problem? 

In the same vein, such discussions are themselves a form of action. It’s not every day that we hold space to talk about these issues and shape people’s awareness. Discussion is needed to move everyone’s needles a little further towards “Advocate” on the spectrum of allyship.  

Just as long as the conversation doesn’t stop here... it certainly won’t be my last!