On Chivalry and Feminism

I don't remember the first time I heard the word feminism, but I do know that I use to think that only women could be a feminist. After I heard the definition of what a feminist was (I know I was in Beaufort, it was probably when I was 10 or 11) I concluded that it was a no-brainer. Since the beginning of my public education, I'd always heard that everyone was equal no matter their differences- why should disimilarities in gender be any different? It certainly helped that all of my elementary school teachers were female, my first doctor was female, and the fact that my mother did most of the child-rearing; I just naturally assumed that women authority figures was the norm and that it was like that in other realms of life as well. It wasn't until later that I learned that this was clearly not the case, that discrimination was based not just on race; it was eye-opening to say the least.
The thing is though, as a male, I felt that I couldn't contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way, that I was supposed to sit on the side lines and observe the issues being discussed. I figure that this is the way that a lot of people feel when they are not privy to conversations between ethnic/national/gender/sexual orientation groups. However, I do know that in my experiences at least, men are much more likely to comment and insert themselves in conversations on women's issues, then say, a white person is to in black issues (I've also noticed this when it comes to sexual orientation issues). This may be because of the religious arguments against feminism and homosexuality: the man is supposed to rule his wife and she is supposed to obey; homosexuality is an abomination (along with shrimp among other things, glad I'm allergic). I remember having a conversation with my father during his religious fanatic phase on the way home from church. He was telling me and my brother about how we were going to be the head of the household and how we had to rule it strongly or else the devil would act on us destroying the entire ship.. we were the only key to the success of the family, basically saying there was something inherently special about being a man besides the fact that we have penises. When I disagreed, he called me a wimp. I thought to myself, anyone getting their social direction from Genesis and Leviticus, books that are completely removed from their original context and translation should shut the hell up.
I think that people on the outside looking in are definitely allowed to voice their opinion on ideas and (issues) on a community which they may not be a part of, as long as they comment with respect and understand their place within the framework. It's not like we can live in a world completely removed from other social groups, it is only natural that we be able to comment on things that will affect us as well, if not in primarily then certainly secondarily.
That being said, although I agree with the underlying tenets of feminism- women's equality, equal pay for equal work, access to childcare, generous maternity leave, etc, I'm certainly not a radical feminist. I do not interpret ever object as some kind of phallic symbol. Nor do I believe that most feminist do. The thing is, the backlash against feminism is in the same vein as the backlash against civil rights, or welfare, or any of the other liberal policies that grew out of the civil rights movement and the 1960's and started to shrivel and die in the late 70's and the Reagan era. It's about characterization and assigning the views of the person on the farthest extreme of the spectrum to the entire group. It's saying that a feminist is someone who wants to turn gender hierarchy upside down rather than on its side.... it's saying the civil rights activist really just wants to stick his dick into every white woman that he sees... it's using a few cases of a person on welfare gaming the system (which of course, rich people would NEVER do) and saying that people on welfare are "queens" and are driving Cadillacs. It's intellectually dishonest and it has painted movements with honorable goals in mind as something completely unhinged. It has also facillitated the rise of an extremely unpallitable strain of conservatism of which are suffering the consequences today.
And yet.... I like buying things for my girlfriend at the mall, getting her nice pants, shoes, shirts. I like her asking me advice about money... I like feeling like a "man" in those times. I want to hold the door, and pull out chairs, and get up in the subway, fix things around the house, mow the grass. Consequently, I also like having a meal cooked for me when I get home, I love it when my girlfriend would clean or iron for me. I know these subscribe to stereotypical gender roles and it may have been the way I was raised. Part of it certainly is that, although these last decades have been pretty good at redefining what it meant to be a woman.. it has been pretty lousy at redefining what it means to be a man. Maybe if sometype of masculine revolution took place, I'd be the one to do the cleaning.
The thing is, in my head I know that there can be both, equality within so-called gender roles. Sometimes, (and I know there is a legitimate critique of feminism that countless women's studies professors have written) we go to far in saying that certain actions are under others. The two most prominent cases of this are housework and things that are physical (subverting physical activities as somehow less evolved or less human than mental ones). Housework, cooking, cleaning, childrearing is seen as lower pursuits than ones outside the home because it is a symbol of a time when it was the only choice that a woman had. Doing these things are not bad in and of themselves, it was not having the choice that was. At the same time, buying things for your spouse was a symbol of power, since having money is power. In a way, many feminist were thinking under the same paradigm (one that puts the outside world and business/money at the top), not thinking about whether or not that paradigm was correct in itself. Maybe we've got it all wrong- maybe those activities in the domestic sphere are actually more sublime- maybe being able to create art or do something skillful with ones body makes one more and not less human. As long as we give people the choice and opportunity to do what they deem their calling.