I am writing this post as a response to Gular's recent post on men and feminism, "Can Anyone Be Overated?" It was originally intended as a comment to that post, but when it reached a certain length, I began to think it merited a post of its own.
I think the idea of male feminists as "overrated" which was lately expressed in the comments on the overrated/underrated post reflects less a desire for men to abstain from participating either on this site or in women's movements in general and more an acknowledgement of some of the problems of male participation. To say that something is overrated is not to say that it is bad or even that it is not important, but that too much attention is devoted to it. For instance, here we are, discussing the desirability of men's participation in feminism and the terms on which it ought or ought not to take place, rather than engaging in discourse that some of us might find ultimately more productive. In this post, I will attempt to lay out some of my feelings on men's participation in feminism and on Gular's post in particular.
One reason many in the feministing community may find male feminists "overrated" is that others may feel, as I do, that we need to be careful to avoid deferring to male voices precisely because, as women, every one of us has been socialized to do so. The ways in which those of us who are women are socialized to defer to men's opinions and judgments while men are socialized to treat their own opinions and speech as inherently worthy of respect is thus one issue that needs to be mentioned. Male privilege is situated not only in economic and political power but in psychological, linguistic and rhetorical power as well (and some would say these are its primary sites of power); thus, I believe we as feminists should certainly seek men as allies and as activists, but I also feel that we must be extremely careful to avoid submitting to men's rhetoric as more authoritative than our own, whether that rhetoric is pro-feminist or misogynistic in nature. Dworkin observes that one manifestation of male cultural authority is "the power of naming," that is, the power to use language to define experience; since masculine language itself (whoever uses it) silences us as women, I think that, as feminists, we are right to be on the lookout for men's attempts to restate our issues in different terms. You are offended to have been labeled as "overrated" and feel that your participation is thus being construed as peripheral, but I'm not even sure that that was what was meant. Perhaps some of the commenters who labeled male feminists "overrated" meant that men shouldn't be handed cookies for having enlightened views "despite" their maleness (and your reference to MercurialGirl's comment is apt on this point); perhaps some meant that we should not as feminists defer to masculine authority by using it as a primary indicator of success (i.e., "Look how well we're doing! We even got men to agree with us!") But I think that your apparent need to feel central rather than peripheral to feminism does reveal a certain amount of male privilege. I do not write this to Other you or to indicate that your participation is unwelcome; but I think all of us need to examine our own privilege and take into account where it influences our views and actions.
In "real life" as on the internet, I constantly see men, pro-feminist and otherwise, define and discuss feminism in various ways that fail to reflect the diversity of contemporary feminisms, reduce feminism to issues of economics, sexual/gendered violence, etc. Some of these men feel that feminism is archaic because equality in these areas has (supposedly) been largely achieved, while others ally themselves with feminism because they see that much more needs to be done before, for instance, rape and sexual violence are eliminated, economic equality between men and women is achieved, etc. While indisputably important (and much easier for social scientists to demonstrate), however, these concerns do not reflect the fullness of the goals of every feminist or every brand of feminism. I do not say that men cannot, because of the fact of their maleness, look beyond these issues, rooted in the physical world and physical suffering, to examine how, for instance, language and images are used against women; but I will say that in my experience, men show an overwhelming tendency to focus on these non-symbolic manifestations of patriarchy (as of other systems of oppression). The fact is that many men are and have been impoverished; have been the targets of systematized violence; have been politically disenfranchised. It thus perhaps makes sense that men tend to view feminist goals through such lenses, just as many Americans view the issues facing the developing world primarily through an economic lens that nevertheless reveals a privilege that stems from being able to relate to the colonizers rather than the colonized. What I am getting it is that we all have a tendency to reformulate and restate others' issues in terms and terminology that "make sense" to us based on our experiences and worldviews, and while I do not want to demonize anyone for this tendency, I do feel that we all need to be aware of it. Most men I have ever talked to, in fact, including some whom I would hardly consider pro-feminism, agree that women and men should earn the same wages for the same work. Some of these men nonetheless clearly psychologically belong, by choice, to a world in which men's concerns are paramount, in which women should stay indoors after dark in order not to be raped, in which daughters should be treated differently than sons, and in which the masculine authority of language is never to be examined critically because language is only the objective communication of What Is. Post-colonialist thought can perhaps best be explained briefly by Edward Said's revelation that Orientalism rests Western representation of the East as incapable of self-representation and thus reliant on being constructed by and in relation to the West. Similarly, as feminists, many of us simply want to represent ourselves and our experiences as women and not passively look on as men do this for us. You state that men on feministing are "a pretty vocal minority"; assuming this to be true, I think that the women in this community will have no problem apprehending why this is the case. If men are a minority here, it is because it is primarily women who self-identify as feminists and concern themselves with women's issues on a daily basis; if men are vocal, it is because language is men's territory.
Many of us feminists, as well, are put off by the ease and comfort with which men, even self-described male feminists, tend to state and restate, define and redefine, the essential qualities of feminism, its roots, goals, and purposes. In your post, you disagree with a previous male poster, Marc, who argued that men should be cautious as to the nature and extent of their participation in feminist movements, particularly taking exception to his assertion that men cannot understand women's lived experiences (or rather, I assume, to the relevance of that assertion). I do not see these concerns as "image-obsessed." (In fact, I think if "image" were the issue, feminists would rather be seen as an inclusive and diverse group rather than as a bunch of straight, white, upper-middle-class cis gendered females, and greater male participation would certainly help to alleviate the whole "hairy, man-hating lesbians who are only lesbians because they can't get a man" meme.) Rather, I believe that lived experience is essential, not to allying yourself or being "allowed" to participate in feminist movements, but to a full understanding of not only "what it is like" to be female but also of our goals and concerns. As a white woman, I feel that combating racism is important, but it is also a luxury for me in that I can reflect on it in an abstract fashion; reflecting on racist images in the media, or on contemporary or historical race-based violence, makes me deeply angry, as I never like to see anyone treated as other than fully human; but it does not make me feel ill in quite the same way that reflecting on misogynistic media messages or sexual violence does. This is not because of what my priorities are, but because of my white privilege, and the same applies to GLBT issues, issues faced by those who are not native English speakers, those who do not reside in the United States, etc. I may not need to understand fully the lived experiences of lesbians, African-Americans, or any other group in order to say that I am committed to their causes; but neither would I be right in saying, "Hey lesbians, African-Americans, and transgendered folks, let me tell you authoritatively what your issues, concerns and goals are, or at least what they ought to be!"
A topic that often comes up on feminist blogs is "owning your privilege," whether it be male privilege or some other kind. In defining feminism as "a set of ideals, not an experiential identification," I feel that you discount an important component of why women identify as feminists and feel feminism is needed, one that goes beyond reading about how often rape occurs or how much women earn compared with their male counterparts, or even experiencing sexual violence or economic disparity. I began to consider myself a feminist around the age of ten or twelve, not because I became aware of rape or sex discrimination but because I became aware that everything had been stacked against me, as a female, since thousands of years before I was born. Religion was not gender-neutral, and neither was language itself. Reading was my first love, yet I had learned without ever having to be told that to read was to experience literature (and life) through an alien masculine perspective. Though the women around me were strong and complex, the women presented to me through books and all other media were often weak or conniving, simple, and often present only to advance a masculinist narrative. I was expected to locate myself somewhere in "mankind," where I clearly was unwelcome.
Certainly a man can understand these experiences in the purely cognitive sense, just as I can understand that African-Americans have more cause to fear the police than I have. But while I encourage any and all enlightened men to understand women's issues, help us fight our battles, and self-identify as feminists, the more so for knowing that, for all we hear about the patriarchy harming men, in so doing they are (hopefully) ceding their male privilege out of a deep sense of social justice, I cannot say that I feel comfortable with men occupying a central role in feminism to the extent that this would mean that women are to be told by men what our goals as feminists are or when something should or should not anger us. Men can certainly be feminists, and I hope that many more will begin to identify themselves as such; but it remains a truism nonetheless that men may maintain a critical distance from women's issues and experiences while women cannot.
You write that "Some feminists, like myself, believe that all struggles against systems of oppression are rooted in the same basic fight and we must all be together to get our rights; the oppressed oppressing other oppressed is not productive and counter to the betterment of society as a whole." Though you are correct in that many feminists see a relationship between misogyny and other forms of oppression--for instance, Marxist feminism connects women's oppression with capitalism--I nonetheless find your statement problematic. Many feminists feel that while patriarchal oppression may not be the only form of oppression that exists, it is nonetheless rooted in particular structures which are distinct from those (such as capitalism) that give rise to other forms of oppression. I may not speak for all feminists, but I believe I may speak for many, when I write that I do not wish to see feminism subsumed by other movements that strive for equality for all; we may all share equality as a common goal, but the manifestations and roots of patriarchy are not identical to or synonymous with those of racial or economic oppression. I would go so far as to say that I am suspicious of rhetoric that tends to downplay sexism and misogyny as only part of a general scheme of oppression to the extent that I fear women's unique issues will be swallowed up by concerns for racial minorities, the poor, etc. These issues may not be less important, but they are distinct nonetheless. (With respect to GLBT issues, I do not find these wholly distinct from women's issues because they are all rooted in constructions of gender. So while I may believe that the particular oppression of gays, lesbians, and transgendered persons follows directly from patriarchal structures, I think differently of racial oppression or the oppression of the working classes.) Another topic that frequently arises on feminist blogs is the "hijacking" of threads about trans issues by cis gendered women (or of threads about issues faced by women of color by white women, etc.) Just as trans men and women want discussions of trans issues to stay on topic, feminists may want contributors to discussions of feminism to avoid hijacking the discussion to talk about other forms of oppression.
For instance, look at the much maligned (in the feminist
blogosphere, at least) William Saletan over at Slate, who is a feminist
ally at least insofar as he claims to be pro-choice. He also writes
with the clear privilege of never having to contemplate or experience
abortion himself, of having it serve as an abstract moral thought-game.
Thus, he writes on topics like "would you have an abortion simply
because you accidentally had someone else's embryo implanted in you"
and "let's try to have fewer second-trimester abortions as a concession
to the pro-lifers" and "what's wrong with you if your pharmacist
refused to give you Plan B and you were actually embarrassed? It's the
pharmacist's problem, not yours!" You may not agree with his stances,
but you seem to share a similar conviction that the fact that these
issues are abstract for you but real for others does not inform your
thoughts or your role in the debate. Saletan does not need to be
negotiating with the Right to Life Foundation over what abortions I can
have and when I can or should have them, and men in general do not need
to be laying out a feminist agenda for me.
In particular, while second-wave feminism has its issues which have been discussed at length by later generations of feminists and scholars (such as failing to take full account of the issues faced by women of color), I find your characterization of second-wave feminism as "sexist" to be problematic. While some may not take issue with the application of the word "sexism" to instances of women discriminating against men, I think at the very least that it is easy to see why feminists of the 1950s, '60s and '70s felt that the movement should be headed and shaped by women. Moreover, your dislike of the "waves" of feminism theory is problematic as well. Do you not find it useful to distinguish between materially different approaches to a problem, simply because you feel it is still the same problem? And as to how feminism can exist before the word exists, do you think that movements or other trends normally begin with a name rather than a set of concerns or goals? Did racism only come into existence with the word "racist"? There are many different feminisms, and while we may share common goals, we must not overlook our differences in the name of unity lest we lose sight of our diversity. I also think that there are more constructive ways in which to pick apart language than to debate whether we should discuss waves of feminism or whether a thing can come into existence before the word for the thing exists.
To conclude, while you do not elaborate on why men's involvement in feminism is "vital," for myself, I can think of a variety of reasons that it is beneficial to feminism for men to support women's movements and to self-identify as feminist. For instance, the more men there are who identify themselves or live their lives as feminists, the more difficult it will be for opponents to represent feminists as man-haters; the more easily young people can be taught about feminist issues; the more readily children will learn to expect equality between men and women; the more readily feminist voices will be heard in patriarchally controlled institutions such as the mainstream media; the more young people will have access to varied paradigms of masculinity and femininity; and, in general, the more traction the movement will gain.
But, for all the reasons I discussed above, while I welcome men's participation in feminism and feminist causes, I cannot look on it as entirely unproblematic.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Some More Thoughts on Men and Feminism.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13631
This was amazing.
I think you said it all, so I don't have anything to add. :)
Thank you for this. You hit on a lot of things I honestly didn't think about, which I think really shows my own shortcomings in my perspective. You raise a lot of points I do agree with, which may be a bit surprising.
I think I had misspoken when I wrote a few phrases which mischaracterized what I was trying to say, on my own account. Putting my foot accidentally in my mouth, as it were.
The image problem statement is inherently problematic and I should have looked at it again. I was trying to, though admittedly failing at, address some more Second Wave beliefs that only women can understand women's issues, even intellectually. That men can only really get it to the point of "well, it happens", but women are the only ones who can really do something about it. It's a thought pattern which leads into Radical Feminism -- the abolition of all men in power for replacement by women (as I've been taught, anyway). I don't see this as a Feminism-wide issue, but it's something I've seen really pop up here a lot in the last few weeks for whatever reason. Even if it's just that I've noticed (and spoken with another Feminister who I'm friends with outside of here about, and she noticed it, too) that members here with masculine names or that are known to be men, tend to get harsher and more "you just don't get it" responses than women, or assumed women, who would do the same thing.
In regards to my issues with establishing waves of Feminism, I find it problematic because it sets false historical distinctions and posthumously baptizes women who may not have identified themselves as feminist. The first wave through the suffragettes and first implementations for readily available birth control (again, as I've been taught) did set the ground work for the second wave. The second wave thoughts began to evolve into the third wave, and from there into post-feminist (though, I don't personally understanding the meaning of post-feminism since feminism has not ended). There are still second and third wave feminists around, so the idea of it being "waves" of a movement I find problematic because waves, as a metaphorical device, implies that they've ended and rip-tided into the next wave. They were subsumed and no longer exist.
Back onto where I just failed with English and implied or said things I didn't necessarily mean, I didn't mean to suggest that women's issues should be entirely subsumed into other areas. Women's issues are a distinct area for improvement within all societies. I feel that they are important as an issue on their own, but that the systems which oppress women are also the same systems which oppress other people. Through this common understanding, all movements can work together to overcome the systems of oppression (what I've come to be told as a Third Wave idea -- "Same Struggle, Same Fight").
Through acknowledging the interplay between the different issues, for instance in the gay community the existence of the "down low" and how it interplays both the heterosexist ideas and the patriarchal ideas which exist within communities, we can move together to overcome these issues. I believe that it can be possible to both keep women's issues and feminism distinct, while also moving towards common causes with other groups.
I hoped this cleared things up a bit. Thank you again for posting this response; it really helped me.
"that members here with masculine names or that are known to be men, tend to get harsher and more "you just don't get it" responses than women, or assumed women, who would do the same thing."
I disagree with the assumption you are making with this statement. I don't think people are harsher and accuse people of 'not getting it' because they are men, they are harsher and accuse people of 'not getting it' when people don't get it and refuse to budge from their position even when they are discussing things that they have not experienced first hand.
I see the same thing often on blogs that talk about racism when commenters dig their heels in and refuse to consider the other person's side even though the other person is talking from the perspective of someone who is actually negatively affected by systemic/institutional racism in society. (I said 'system/institutional racism' rather than racism even though I think they are the same because I don't want to get into a debate about words.) And it's not because the commenter who dug their heels in had a white-sounding moniker.
When I first started commenting on blogs about racism, I was accused of not getting it because I did not get it. Sometimes that's all there is to it. :)
I just personally see a lot of, what I think is, trollish behavior on the site. I can't remember the exact term for it, but it's when a person who is not in the majority where they are situated sees more from specific circumstances and construes patterns about them which aren't necessarily true. It's a sociological term that's escaping me.
It's quite possible I could be falling into that trap. I had wanted to tackle the issue generally since it had come up generally from over/under and I thought it'd actually be a nice post about how we all should respect each other and learn from each other more than the more aggressive commenting which has been occuring. A call for something more civil. That's not exactly what happened, but it was my intention.
:) Feministing will never be civil. You think it's rough being male on Feministing, try talking about your religion. If you say a minority view point, you're going to get attacked. It doesn't have much to do with gender or sex.
And I would never claim that I was 'oppressed' on feministing because by defending religion, I am in the minority and often attacked. I think that would be a gross misapplication of the word.
Having one's feelings hurt is not oppression. And having the 'power' to hurt another's feelings is not real power.
And I'm not trying to diminish you with the phrase 'hurt feelings', but I don't know a better way to put it.
I think there's a middle term for what we're both trying to grasp at. That's it's not necessarily oppression, but it's more than a hurt feeling.
My opinions are often in the minority here when I post. I like to post on entries where I have something to say more than "I totally agree!" because I don't find it productive to a site about talking on issues.
I don't think I'm oppressed here, but I think there's a tendency on the site to try to shut down the other side and prove your chops in your argument. It's not systematic like oppression, but it's more than a hurt feelings type idea, either.
If I'm off base, let me know, though. I don't want to be putting words in your mouth.
Nope, I think we're on the same page.
I agree with this last characterization. I think the phenomenon you are talking about--that minority opinions on feministing are silenced by the girth and solidarity of the majority opinion rather than its argumentative merits--is a significant problem, certainly not unique to this community, that extends beyond hurt feelings, but is short of oppression.
It IS, however, a power relationship. The majority opinion silencing dissent by the force of its own orthodoxy. It is a marginalization technique that runs contrary to our feminist ideals.
I think your use of the word marginalization is a gross misapplication of the word as the word is used in feminist discourse.
I was using it in a feminist context. I don't mean to equate the marginalization of minority feminist discourse with the marginalization of oppressed groups in general, rather, all I said was that the same technique was used (a privilege of majority or a privilege of orthodoxy)--and that technique I feel is inappropriate and inconsistent with feminism. And yes, I believe it is the same technique, although if you disagree I would be interested to hear your argument, as you have a long track record at feministing clarifying and bridging opinions when folks don't agree. (I'm willing to bet I've +1'd more of your comments than anyone else's).
When this community responded terribly to discourse over trans issues several weeks ago, many commentors attempted to use the same majority-centric marginalization techniques. That was obviously an offense of a much graver seriousness, because oppressed groups have a greater need for safe space than non-oppressed groups. Now I am not for a second simply equating the two events--rather, I am pointing out a crucial, regrettable commonality: this technique was a way to dismiss ideas and experiences for reasons beyond the merits of the ideas and experiences themselves, and those are not okay in any circumstances short of trolling (when the minority opinion is speaking in bad faith).
Preach! A lot of times you have to either bite your tongue or just be ready the onslaught.
Unimportant side note: I take issue with your tendency to talk about second wave feminists as a monolith. I'm in my twenties and thus don't know anything from first-hand experience, but I've read enough to know that 'second-wave' feminists are far from a monolith and there were even important male feminists. Google Richard Graham NOW or Richard Graham EEOC.
That was Richard Graham and NOW the acronym, not Richard Graham and a command to 'do it NOW'.
understood.
Also, fascinating man. I just read an obit (first hit off Google). That's ridiculously awesome.
The way I talk about Second Wave is how I was taught about it. I was taught by a very hard-wing Third Wave, gender queer feminist -- so I think a lot of his biases leaked into me.
Gular,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think I see what you mean about the “waves”; however, I think this is a common problem whenever we talk about historical phenomena that don’t have discrete boundaries (and how many phenomena do, apart from perhaps wars or political campaigns?) I’ve heard equally heated debates about the difference between things like punk and post-punk and new wave music as I have about when second wave feminism gave way to third wave (or whether it did at all, etc.), so I realize that a lot of people are just uncomfortable with posthumously baptizing a movement, whatever its nature. I’m also not sure that the existence of the term “third-wave” for instance is meant to imply that second-wave feminists no longer exist, but if it does imply this, then I would certainly disagree. The term “post-feminist” is simply offensive; as the slogan goes, I’ll be a post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.
However, especially given the widely discussed “I’m not a feminist, but [then person reveals how their core beliefs coincide with feminism]” trend, I’m not sure how much weight we should give to someone’s self-identification as a feminist. For me, if someone says “I’m not a feminist but I’m hell-bent on ending sexism and smashing the patriarchy,” then that person is in fact a feminist; at the same time, if someone says that they are a feminist but that they hold a bunch of misogynistic beliefs, then I do not consider that person to be a feminist any more than I concede someone’s ability to define themselves as “not a racist” if that person goes on to say that black people are genetically inferior to whites. All of that is to say that I don’t think we should give too much weight to self-definition, especially when we’re talking about people who may have lived before the word “feminist” was current. To me, feminism is a set of beliefs, not an identity, and I have no problem considering someone like J.S. Mill a feminist simply out of concern for using anachronistic terminology. I by no means feel that men, simply by virtue of being male, “just don’t get it”; in fact, my academic background is in literature, and my particular interest as a feminist lies in examining how the work of male authors can reveal nuanced perceptions of women and their role and treatment in patriarchal society. That is to say, I don’t at all believe that men have nothing of value to contribute to feminism; in fact, men can hopefully make unique contributions to the fight for women’s rights by virtue of their masculine perspectives on patriarchal systems of oppression.
I think we're keying into the same idea, but are on different sides of the fence in regard to it.
I see feminism as a tool of self-identification. If someone adheres to the values (which are paramount, as you agree), but does not consider themselves a feminist, then they're not a feminist. I would consider them to be a feminist ally, not a feminist themselves since they don't consider themselves a member of the movement.
I think this also clearly ties into my apprehension at feminist baptising anti-patriarchy fighters of the past. They were not feminists as feminism in its understood form did not exist, but they did encompass feminist ideals. They're feminist heroes, but not feminists themselves.
Beautifully written post.
"I may not need to understand fully the lived experiences of lesbians, African-Americans, or any other group in order to say that I am committed to their causes; but neither would I be right in saying, "Hey lesbians, African-Americans, and transgendered folks, let me tell you authoritatively what your issues, concerns and goals are, or at least what they ought to be!""
I do think that, whatever your identity, you can look at a system of advantage such as patriarchy or whiteness and break it down for friends/people around you, explain the way that it works and some ways in which it affects people in everyday life. Especially if where you are getting your information from is from the "oppressed side", as in, a side that isn't writing about it with the intent of upholding the power structure, and so less likely to normalize subtle issues and more likely to look critically at them.
Because otherwise, how can I tell my fellow sisters to care about feminist issues? I can't really tell them to, but I can explain the forces at work, regardless of who I am, and they can see how that measures up in their own lives and if decide if it's something that they find pertinent.
We also keep coming back to this idea of "men taking a leading role in feminism." But feminism is just a bunch of people, it isn't an organization with leadership. It's true that men should not set the agenda for the women's mov't, but it personally wouldn't bother me if they took charge of a particular feminist initiative (hypothetically-- a program where men talked to middle school boys about these sexism in the classroom. Though, best to have women talk to girls.)It wouldn't make sense for them to lead these with no woman input because it would risk being divorced from the issues. But even if men don't know what it's like to be a woman, they aren't dumb. They can figure this stuff out with us.
All that said, I agree that I think the main benefit of men in the movement has to do with making feminism seem less... scary? and spreading it around to everyone. Though I do think that I gain from their knowledge of theory, and their input especially in a practical sense of say, how to talk to men about a certain issue, and be heard. What do you think? Is that wrong? I don't think we should defer to men by any means, but I do think they know something about the other side of the patriarchy, that I don't know, but could help me to break it down...
To be honest, I'm not 100% clear on this one. I'm a bit confused at myself. But it goes against my natural instincts to say that only women have anything worthwhile to give me in terms of feminism.
I agree on the importance of having men on our side; like you, I envision men telling other men (and boys) in effect not to be a bunch of date-raping, slut-shaming douchebags who hold on to their male privilege like a lion with a gazelle carcass. Men need to set an example for other men, and as a bonus, it is much more difficult because of male privilege to discount men’s feminist views. I certainly value the input of men when it comes to the expectations of dudeliness or what it is like to be a man who doesn’t meet expectations of masculinity (for instance, by not being interested in sports). My concerns over men’s leadership certainly wouldn’t extend to a male-led workshop about sexism, gendered violence, etc., which I think are great ideas. In fact, I wouldn’t mind men leading workshops with female students either because I think women and girls need to see that their enemy is the patriarchy, not individual men.
I think this is a great point, and I agree on all counts. I would like to say that the sentiment "it is much more difficult because of male privilege to discount men’s feminist views" is far from the rule.
Male feminists frequently find themselves excluded from patriarchal establishments because of their feminist views--they in effect give up some of their male privilege when they don't submit to the hierarchical gender structure of the patriarchy, which often (not always) creates an environment where their opinions are devalued on all subjects (this often happens to all patriarchy-breakers). Consequently, feminist men frequently find themselves living in a feminist limbo: their feminist-ness devalues their contributions in patriarchal discussions, and their male-ness devalues their contributions in feminist discussions (this is not to excuse privilege), the area where they would prefer to feel at home. This, of course, is little compared to the similar problems WOC and GLBT feminists face within and without the movement, but it is not insubstantial.
Thank you for writing this.
The OP writes: "I cannot say that I feel comfortable with men occupying a central role in feminism to the extent that this would mean that women are to be told by men what our goals as feminists are or when something should or should not anger us. Men can certainly be feminists, and I hope that many more will begin to identify themselves as such; but it remains a truism nonetheless that men may maintain a critical distance from women's issues and experiences while women cannot."
I find these statements troubling, because they essentially say that men have an entirely subservient role in feminism ("peripheral" is used in the post), or at least feminism as the OP defines it. (As in it is okay for men to participate, as long as they don't try to actually, well, participate.)
But feminism is a much more complicated issue than either the OP or Gular give it credit for (although kudos for the acknowledgment of the many feminisms on this site and in the real world), and it defines the world we ALL are trying to live in. Many men participate in feminism out of self interest--they want to live in a world no one is limited based on gender, and recognize that women's issues are the core of this battle. These men who seek to promote feminism in the world deserve full participation within feminism--that means having a proportional voice when they disagree, and occasional positions of authority.
It is the duty of all people to respect the experience of oppressed individuals, and this is especially true for men who step into the (rightfully) female-oriented feminist sphere, and I am NOT okay with the idea of men, at large, dictating feminist policy. That said, I don't understand why a minority faction of male feminists shouldn't be proportionally represented within the movement.
I know this idea risks sounding like male privilege, but it is fundamentally different. It stems from a gender equality that is a core element of most feminisms: all people have a right to help shape the ideological movements they subscribe to, regardless of identity, provided they are respectful of the very experiences they are discussing.
I'd like to think this much we can agree upon: Feminism is about women. Feminism affects men. Feminism is larger than one gender.
So why don't we recognize and embrace this difficulty, picking apart the machinery of male privilege within this movement, rather than simply excluding major male participation out of fear of it running amok?
"rather than simply excluding major male participation out of fear of it running amok?"
No one is arguing that.
I would respond to the substance of your comment (and I do have a response), but if your statements are coming from the assumption that someone is arguing that men should be excluded, I think my response might be a waste of time.
I don't at all think anyone is arguing men should be excluded. I know how important this issue is, and I apologize for using language in a less than transparent way here. Rather, I think intentionally limiting mens participation in feminism to essentially the role of allies and ambassadors isn't fair to the men who are genuinely committed to feminism and deserve a voice (certainly not THE voice) within the movement. I would like to read your response to my post--it is part of the reason why I commented.
I didn't mean to sound dismissive or otherwise objectionable.
Eh, I think my response would be moot now. moodygirl responded better than I could anyways. :)
I am a black man. I relate the dynamic between men in feminism with whites in anti-racism. If they are dedicated to the examination and rejection of privilege, they can make insightful contributions. Still, they will mostly learn from PoC, and perhaps spread the message to other white people. On the other hand, white people who assume they know shit, or call PoC bloggers racists simply demonstrate their privilege. I ask the men reading this to choose the former path.
Many men participate in feminism out of self interest--they want to live in a world no one is limited based on gender, and recognize that women's issues are the core of this battle. These men who seek to promote feminism in the world deserve full participation within feminism--that means having a proportional voice when they disagree, and occasional positions of authority.
I cannot disagree enough. Men who participate in feminism out of self interest are not feminists. The maintenance of privilege is male self interest; with this in mind, men acting out of self interest only undermine feminism.
I see another side to your line, "they want to live in a world where no one is limited based on gender." Really, this means that they support women's rights up until they encroach on male privilege. These men claim "marginalization" and "othering" by commentators on the internet. They do not see how this trivializes the marginalization and othering that those without privilege must deal with in the real world.
I have made a couple "what about teh menz?" comments in the past, and only upon reflection did I realize that my comments stemmed from male privilege. Hopefully, those who consider men "marginalized" in feminism will take time to reflect on their male privilege.
"These men claim "marginalization" and "othering" by commentators on the internet. They do not see how this trivializes the marginalization and othering that those without privilege must deal with in the real world."
THIS.
That's all I have to say.
Stop and look at what you just wrote.
"I see another side to your line,
'they want to live in a world where no one is limited based on gender.' Really, this means that they support women's rights up until they encroach on male privilege."
No, that would mean that they support women having the same rights and responsibilities as men, and vice versa. Yes, I'm sure there ARE men who support women's rights without wanting to give up any privilege, but getting that out of the line you quoted is a huge leap of logic.
Or are you saying that you do not want to live in a world where no one is limited based on gender?
that feminists want to live in a world where no one is limited based on gender/class/race/ethnicity is understood and assumed among feminists.
in practice, those who feel the need to state "i wish we could live in a world where color didn't matter," or "i got didn't get [the job/admission] because i'm a man and that's sexism" don't even understand feminism. i've never heard that kind of wistful, generalized, meaningless statement from someone who is having to fight sexism/racism/any ism. many of them (not all) are the ones who oppose affirmative action because then we're being "unfair" against whites or males. well that just means you don't know or don't care about the racist/sexist history of the united states where minorities and women have been actively kept out of leadership. which means to change that, we have to ACTIVELY let them into leadership. the majority of whites/men during the 60s, as the majority of whites/men today, believed that society was equal - because they didn't have to experience thinking about their race and gender and how it affects them everyday of their life.
thank you questioning? for recognizing your male privileges among women. i've found that just like many "nice" guys who believe things should be equal but won't recognize their privilege, many white feminists also tend to TELL feminists of color what they ought to do and don't recognize their white privilege. many times when they do recognize their privilege, they tend to have this "savior" mentality rather than solidarity. also, unless white feminists actively recruit minority members to whatever groups they're in, their groups will stay white, just like institutions in the real world. that of course doesn't mean white feminists have to be "peripheral" in colored feminists' movements, that just means they have to fight from their side, rather than direct from outside. i've recognized my own privileges and ignorances in thinking what poor people "ought" to do, or how we can "save" sex workers from their miseries.
one of my personal aspirations is to not let my anger cloud my communication with well meaning "nice" peers who make comments like "i'm not racist. i just think that it's just as wrong to give people extra opportunities based on color," or "i think classism is a bigger problem than racism, and what gets called racist is not always racist." it's so darn hard though!!!! because i know when i see it that the person doesn't understand shit about being oppressed, as indicted by Naught's following comments. it's always the men or whites who do it most, actually, who do it at all.
i've been one of the minority commentors several times on feministing arguing against misconceptions of religion and culture. let me tell you, it's annoying when people refuse to get it, but it doesn't come close to real life where i or others won't even have the chance/access to the IMPORTANT opportunities to voice our opinions.
Good to know Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't involved in the fight against racism. I would have thought he was, but I guess since he said he hoped that someday people would not be judged by the color of their skin, he must not have understood oppression.
You seem to be confusing the sentiment that we DO live in a world where gender/race doesn't matter (I agree, we don't, and while we've gotten closer since the 1960s we still have a ways to go) than that we should try to create such a world.
I'm not ashamed to say that I wish we lived in a world where everyone had a fair chance and was judged by their character and accomplishments, not by what categories they fit into.
But a man supporting women having the same rights as men isn't *self-interest*. The problem with that description is that overall, women ARE the oppressed class and men aren't, so if a man is espousing that belief they will have to accept that making the genders equal will mean giving up certain privileges he is currently living with and therefore actually acting against his interests.
On the other hand, if a man says they're for equality for the genders out of self-interest, that makes me suspect they're only interested in the ways that patriarchy hurts men and are not interested in shifting the status quo in a way that would impinge on their current privileged position. And *that* isn't feminism.
That presupposes that the oppressor/oppressee relationship is a zero-sum game, which is far from a certainty. It also supposes that everyone has the same utility function for privileges, which (again) is far from certain.
There are, at the least, loads of issues discussed here where the treatment of women is seen as problematic, where changing it wouldn't cost me, as a man, anything at all. If the societal pressure on women to be thin decreased, say, or even was eliminated, what does that cost me, as a man? Nothing. You can pick other issues, sometimes there might be a clear cost, or it might be ambiguous. Depends on the issue, depends on your utility function.
I would freely admit to being a male feminist out of self interest--I want to break down gender roles for me, my friends, my family members, my fellow human beings regardless of gender. Feminism IS NOT charity work because it is cleaning up the world for everyone, oneself included. And I am not primarily interested in the ways patriarchy hurts men, although I obviously have a vested interest there.
I am a feminist because I bump my head into gender barriers every day. And every woman bumps her head into gender barriers every 5 minutes. If I believe gender roles are the problem (and I do) I know that I have to take on ALL gender barriers holistically, and the strongest of those are all related to Women's issues. Honestly, I think that is the duty of all feminists and all male feminists.
Also, it isn't fair to say Women are THE oppressed class. Men are oppressed by the patriarchy, but to an obviously lesser degree. And male feminists, in attacking their own privilege to tear down the "old boys club" of the establishment, actually do themselves a fair amount of deliberate social and professional damage. They don't deserve special treatment, a cookie, or a pat on the back for it--what they do deserve is to have their own voice for their efforts.
It is unfair to assume that male self-interest in feminism is anti-feminist. Every single feminist issue is beneficial for men, just less so than women. (Unless you think it is in men's interest to combat equality--to sell a little gender freedom for a higher pay grade...)
Men cannot and should not separate themselves from the plight of women. If a man's wife or mother can't get a promotion because of gender, it hurts them both. And if he works in a historically female dominated profession like nursing or teaching, his wages are depressed by institutional sexism. It is self interest to want equality for our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, girlfriends, and yes, ourselves.
I would go so far to say that every man SHOULD be a feminist out of self interest. Male privilege is not beneficial to men, because it limits male freedom and male equality and forces men's hands. Therefore, it is our job to destroy it, for the benefit of women and men. Am I not entitled to be angry that gender runs my life, too?
Destroying male privilege is the most important thing male feminists can do, but we must do it with the understanding that it helps us, not hurts us.
"And if he works in a historically female dominated profession like nursing or teaching, his wages are depressed by institutional sexism."
False. Please google "glass elevator." There are very few arenas in which men are oppressed by women and 'female dominated professions' sure isn't one of them.
I could be wrong, but I have a feeling you're missing the point of dangerfield's comment. Men in historically female-dominated fields are underpaid, not by being paid less than the women, but because all workers in these fields are underpaid. (As far as I'm aware, there's not much pay discrimination based on gender within one job these days. The battle for equal pay for women moved on to "comparable jobs" exactly for this reason.)
Sure, there's the glass elevator, but that works by pushing men into jobs which are seen as more "appropriate" for men. If those jobs are not actually something they want to do, that's no real answer. In particular, a lot of jobs which require caring for people or working with children are seen as "women's work" and underpaid. Riding the glass elevator means going into admin and losing that aspect.
(There is also real anti-male discrimination in some areas, especially primary education. Getting into the whys of this is too much for one comment, I think.)
I don’t feel that men ought to be subservient or peripheral in feminism; in my post, I used the word “peripheral” not to indicate men’s rightful role, but to suggest how I thought Gular had interpreted the terming of male feminists as overrated as a claim that men were being ostracized or Othered by female posters. So, yes, the word “peripheral” is used, but not as you seem to suggest.
Feminism is definitely more complicated than I am able to express in 2,000 words (not to mention that I don’t claim to be the world’s foremost expert on the subject). I also must join with others who cannot consider men who participate in feminism out of self-interest to be true feminists. My concern is not with men having positions of authority within feminism; in fact, I believe that the current trend of “gender studies,” examining not only women’s oppression but cultural formations of masculinity, etc., is an excellent thing and one only possible if we take the time to listen to male voices. Perhaps if we had more male participation, women would be making as many gains in the amount of housework and childcare they perform on top of working full-time as we have in the past 50 years with respect to career opportunities and equal pay.
Picking apart male privilege rather than excluding male participation is exactly what I am in favor of. I only said that we should be critical (in the sense of critical thinking) about men’s participation, not that we should limit it.
I really appreciate that clarification, and I apologize for being considerably more clumsy in my use of language.
I agree on all accounts of with your comment, and with the great majority of your original post. I am happy to see men's contributions to feminism be treated with critical thinking in the same way that all contributions to feminism are. We all bring some degree of patriarchy into the movement--and it is important to check men for privilege in the same way we need to be careful women don't defer to men out of patriarchal instruction.
As a response to me, I think she was continuing on in the verbage I was using which is through the lense of a collective and not a steered "I'm in control" thing. There's not really been a huge "men need to get out", so I think you may be a bit off base with that.
Feminism is big and complicated, but centers around some really basic ideas.
When I first read Gular's post I was feeling so much of what you described! Thank you for helping me realize what I was feeling in an accurate, articulate way!
There's been a lot of dancing around this in the comments, but nobody seems willing to directly address it. A significant number of posters on Feministing are very strongly prejudiced against men, and display their biases quite openly. This, and it's toleration, has a number of negative effects.
First, prejudice against anyone and toleration of open prejudice is inherently bad. There may be less negative effect from prejudice by women against men than prejudice by men against women, but that doesn't make it right or OK.
Second, it shallows the level of discourse. Gender issues that have depth often get dismissed or given a canned anti-male response rather than a serious examination. See the discussion of the most recent Professor Foxy post, for example, where little honest consideration is given to the question by the letter-writer if it's hypocritical of her to be unhappy that men aren't attracted to her because of her appearance while she is only attracted to conventionally attractive men.
Third, obviously, it's hostile to feminists who are men. The extent to which this is important has already been discusses aplenty in this thread.
"A significant number of posters on Feministing are very strongly prejudiced against men"
I've seen no evidence of that. AT ALL. I've seen a FEW posters on Feministing that MIGHT be hostile to male commenters, and maybe ONE or TWO who are 'very strongly prejudiced against men', but no, I see absolutely no reason to believe that a SIGNIFICANT number of posters on Feministing are are 'very' 'strongly' prejudiced against men.
Amend that:
*that MIGHT be hostile to **specific** male commenters
"Significant" and "very strongly" are entirely relative terms, so it ought to be hard to agree/disagree with the statement. I wouldn't say "significant", but I might say "nontrivial", though. Or maybe I'd say it's "trivial". It's hard to say. I don't think I'd be comfortable saying it's a flat "zero", though. That doesn't jive with my experience. (I could be wrong on that too, though).
From my own experience, it sometimes occurs that I wonder if I wouldn't have gotten a different response if I had the username "Wendy" or "Karen", rather than "Brian". But how can I know? Maybe I've explained myself poorly. I think every time I've received a hostile/negative/whatnot response, the responder has very clearly misunderstood what I've said (or read more meaning into it than I've intended); pushed me into (what I'd guess) they see as a more stereotypical male attitude; but maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough, maybe I'd have been misunderstood the same, maybe more, maybe less, maybe differently. Possibly it's nothing, or my imagination getting carried away with me. I'm not sure how I can distinguish.
Whatever my own perception is worth (very little), you should expect male posters to perceive the amount of anti-male sentiment (which I hope we can agree is nonzero) as more than female posters perceive it to be (on average, with other factors in play). Unless we're trying to be quantitative (okay, so my bias leaks in), we should expect different evaluations from different perspectives.
That's how I felt when Gular's post went up. There really weren't that many comments calling feminist men overrated. I feel like the fact that we're even having this discussion is a symbol of male privilege. There's simply not enough anti-male sentiment on feministing to warrant four posts.
That claim just seems outlandish.
"See the discussion of the most recent Professor Foxy post"
I don't see how that is an example of hostility towards the male feminists on Feministing. They were disagreeing with the ideas being argued.
Compare the response to that post vs. http://community.feministing.com/2009/04/feminist-boys-who-are-to-influ.html#comments. It's the same question but with the genders reversed - is it OK for a feminist woman to be attracted only to conventionally attractive men, vs. is it OK for a feminist man to be attracted only to conventionally attractive women. Note the highly differing responses.
http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/marketing-the-male-pill-to-wel.html#comment-253224 (and plenty of the other comments on that post)
This entire fucked-up post, and the first two people who responded: http://community.feministing.com/2009/05/52-days-of-domestic-violence-f.html#comments is a perfect example. Note how only male violence matters; violence by women against women and children is irrelevant. Note how only female victims matter; despite that fact that a bit more than half of the victims are men, the "epidemic" is of violence against women and children. To be clear, I would have no problem with a post that actually focused on violence against women (we have plenty of those around here).
It went so far over the line that it got deleted, but Pololly's abusive reply to Gular in his thread was another perfect example.
Brian: I would say "significant" and "nontrivial" mean the same thing. Perhaps it's my math background speaking here. When I say "a significant number" I mean enough to count, but not a large number. Maybe 5%-ish, but it's always hard to tell exact numbers.
Certainly, though, men are going to notice anti-male prejudice more than women. If you don't agree, keep your eyes open for posts that automatically assume men are violent/abusive, look at how commenters judge people in anecdotes and think about if they'd do the same thing were the genders reversed, and pay attention to statements that start with "men are" or "women are."
I would second that, with the corollary that I think the community is pretty good (but certainly not perfect) at addressing hostility towards maleness in general. Most of the comments regarding the male pill that were insulting to men were reproached, sometimes overwhelmingly.
Yes, this has been my experience as well.
"It went so far over the line that it got deleted, but Pololly's abusive reply to Gular in his thread was another perfect example."
I just don't think that was prejudice towards men. I really think she just strongly disagreed with what he was saying and used a lot of immature language. I have had worse things said to me on this website when I took up the minority position.
I will agree that some people on this website may not be able to recognize how patriarchy hurts men as well as they are able to recognize how patriarchy hurts women, but I don't think that translates into anti-male bias. (Full disclosure: those last two links were really long and I don't have time to read them today, so I can't respond to them in particular).
"It's the same question but with the genders reversed - is it OK for a feminist woman to be attracted only to conventionally attractive men, vs. is it OK for a feminist man to be attracted only to conventionally attractive women."
One final note. Though I don't agree with everything said on those threads, I do believe that the two questions are in fact different questions because of how women and men are differently situated in and differently experience the patriarchy. Again, recognizing that they are different questions doesn't necessarily lead me to the same answers as many people in those comments, but I strongly believe they are different questions nonetheless.
And again, I think it has to do with sexism being institutional/systemic, with patriarchy being an entire social system. If something stems from patriarchy (or stems from the systemic sexism in our society, if you do not like the word patriarchy), and something feeds into patriarchy and thus perpetuates it, that is different than something else that only affects two people. I think in that comment thread, and in many comment threads, people are implicitly focusing on the overarching effects of all the teeny-tiny things that feed into patriarchy, and not approaching the issue as if it were two individuals interacting in isolation.
Huh, my "final note" became longer than the rest of my comment.
And I'm going to make it longer.
To elaborate on this: I think in that comment thread, and in many comment threads, people are implicitly focusing on the overarching effects of all the teeny-tiny things that feed into patriarchy, and not approaching the issue as if it were two individuals interacting in isolation.
I think implicit in that entire disagreement in the other thread was an argument about whether all preoccupation with looks and beauty stems from and feeds into the patriarchy or whether only preoccupation with WOMEN'S looks and beauty stem from and feed into the patriarchy. I think the two sides were arguing from those two positions, whether or not they were able to articulate it in that way.
Punchbuggy
While I can certainly see how one might take that as the focus (and certainly, a valid issue for discussion, though), there'll also be a message conveyed to the men here; that it's inappropriate/unacceptable/unethical for us to have any preferences in the physical appearance of our partners, but that it is appropriate/acceptable/ethical for women to do so. Maybe that message isn't intended, but it's certainly broadcast. (Not that the community was of one mind on either issue, mind you.)
One might imagine that most of the men about here adhere to fairly egalitarian moral standards, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that they'd find that message upsetting/afronting/whatnot.
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I'm not talking about the questions of how the patriarchy shapes our perceptions of male vs. female beauty being different. Not everyone was focusing on the overarching social effects; a lot of people were making judgments about the people involved as individuals, and this is where their prejudices are most visible.
Look at how many of the comments on the "Feminist Boys..." thread are about how the guy who didn't think she was attractive is a shallow asshole, a horrible person, should have loved her for her personality, etc. Now look at how many of the comments on the Foxy thread are reassuring the writer that she's not a bad person for liking only conventionally attractive men, that she shouldn't question who she finds attractive, etc.
"is a shallow asshole, a horrible person,"
I did not read those comments closely. Now that I'm more aware of what was said in that thread, I understand where you're coming from. Sorry I was arguing about it without having read all the comments...
It's cool, thanks for taking the time to read them carefully.
When she had first responded to me, I had to try really hard not to say "thanks for proving my example". However, I don't necessarily believe it's because I'm a man, though I believe it may be a strong contributing factor.
She had some good points she raised, I will hand her that. I just wasn't about to be trolled by someone who didn't want to listen to me because of my "huge ego".
To start off, I agree with the vast majority of your post and it's detailed deconstruction of many of then men-as-feminists issues that should be examined (your third and fourth paragraphs especially).
However, I think you are using language in a potentially problematic way when analyzing 'overrated' and using 'central':
You interpret a male response to 'overrated' to be that they are not central, and then go on to use 'central' to mean involved in telling feminists (especially women) what to do.
"I cannot say that I feel comfortable with men occupying a central role in feminism to the extent that this would mean that women are to be told by men what our goals as feminists are or when something should or should not anger us."
Speaking for myself as a male feminist, I have no interest in saying what anyone should/shouldn't be angered by. Nor do I want to dictate goals of feminism.
I took 'central' to mean of vital importance to the ultimate goals of the movement, and I think it is a very reasonable viewpoint to consider deconstruction of male gender norms vital--here is my argument for men being a central/vital element within feminism.
The current heteronormative male gender identity demands a particular heteronormative female gender identity to complete the role. It seems to me that even if female gender roles are largely deconstructed, as long as male gender roles remain the same feminist movements will hit a ceiling in some areas (such as gendered violence).
The tactics taken for deconstructing female gender roles could also work on male gender roles, tactics like:
-role models who defy societal pressure
-challenging gendered reinforcement of behaviors
-identifying the unfair constraints of current roles
I believe it is fair to say that many male gender roles are reinforced in all male settings and by male role models (in addition to numerous other-possibly overlapping-areas, such as media). Michael Kimmel in particular identifies how male gender roles get enforced in his book Guyland (an excellent, though depressing, analysis of male gender roles).
If deconstructing male gender roles is important, and effective tactics directly inhibit the enforcement of such roles, and men are the key enforcers, then male feminists are needed to effectively deconstruct such gender roles.
Thus to the extent that a feminist believes deconstruction of male gender roles is vital to feminism, male feminists are a 'central', vitally important, element of feminism.
I do not believe that this argument is simple or ought to become canonized by the feminist movement. My premises can be disputed, their connection to my conclusion deconstructed, and the importance of this issue to the feminist movement as a whole can most certainly be debated.
However, I do not believe it is fair to dismiss my argument as a product of male privilege simply because I am a man arguing for the importance of a male role in feminism. There are indeed many areas in which my voice is inherently limited by privilege, such as the topic of reproductive rights--my privilege leaves me separated in significant ways that you identify. Yet it seems to me that discussing the impact of male gender roles and their enforcement is not one of these areas.
I think I may have rambled a bit, but I hope my intention/argument was clear. In conclusion, thank you for this post. I will be spending the next several days contemplating how my male privilege impacts the voice I have/ought to have in various debates. Your post clearly and convincingly pointed out some interesting issues that I hadn't considered before, which will hopefully help me better 'own' my privilege.
"Speaking for myself as a male feminist, I have no interest in saying what anyone should/shouldn't be angered by. Nor do I want to dictate goals of feminism."
and:
"If deconstructing male gender roles is important, and effective tactics directly inhibit the enforcement of such roles, and men are the key enforcers, then male feminists are needed to effectively deconstruct such gender roles.
Thus to the extent that a feminist believes deconstruction of male gender roles is vital to feminism, male feminists are a 'central', vitally important, element of feminism."
whoops... there you go already.
You're response is exactly what I was objecting to. I present an argument about men in feminism, even using phrasing like 'to the extent', allowing someone with different goals to ignore my argument entirely, and then I follow it up by saying:
"I do not believe that this argument is simple or ought to become canonized by the feminist movement. My premises can be disputed, their connection to my conclusion deconstructed, and the importance of this issue to the feminist movement as a whole can most certainly be debated."
If that doesn't say 'I'm just presenting an argument to be debated, not trying to control feminism', then you might as well come out and say men shouldn't even make feminist arguments.
Thank you.
I disagree with one thing in your post. I didn't mention it above so as to not derail.
I don't think racism can be separated out of feminism. In some situations, women of different races experience patriarchy completely differently than one another. That is a direct result of racism, so in order to have frank discussions about how patriarchy operates in society, we have to factor in racism.
Why are we all being so careful as to say we don't want men to feel as if we're trying to put them in a role of subservience? I mean, honestly? Any man who is a true feminist is going to realize that to be a woman often IS to be in a position of subservience. Any man who is really out to right wrongs and truly fight for the feminist cause will stop complaining about how women are not taking his opinion seriously enough when commenting on a feminist blog. Feminist safe spaces are places where women get to be in charge, for once, and it would be rather nice if so-called allies would shut up and listen, every now and then.
See, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, but there are tons and TONS of communities and blogs full of guys who all take themselves very seriously, and women are extremely not welcome on those pages, and the guys aren't bending themselves over backwards to show the women that they aren't trying to be mean, per se, but-
"it would be rather nice if so-called allies would shut up and listen, every now and then."
Asking allies to shut up and listen is different from asking them to just shut up. If "women are not taking [a man's] opinion seriously" at all, rather than the vague term 'enough', then this blog is just telling men to shut up. Maybe that situation really doesn't happen on this blog, but acting like the appropriate role for men in feminist spaces is so simple is a bit of a disservice imho.
You are right that there are many guy-oriented blogs that tell women to shut up, and they are sexist/misogynist. They create an unwelcoming environment for people based solely on the poster's perceived gender. Maybe that's a bad thing to do on any blog, including/especially feminist ones.
No doubt allies should focus on listening and not telling. But that is another binary with a million shades in between, like sharing, suggesting, commenting, or debating. Surely just because an ally stepped out of a strictly listening role doesn't mean they are trying to conquer feminist safe spaces.
The important part of, "shut up and listen," is "listen." Your post, which called this poster and possibly feministing.com sexist against men, just proves that you haven't been listening.
I agree that the important part is listen, and I think my comment clearly indicates that. I'd also like to know where I called the poster/feministing sexist against men, because that seems like a straw man of my post.
My post was saying that if feminists believe men should listen, then they should focus on the 'listen to me' part of the message, not 'shut up'aspect.
I honestly feel that your post does nothing but try to invalidate my opinion by claiming I don't listen. looking at this line "No doubt allies should focus on listening and not telling" should clearly tell you my stance. I have been reading feministing for a year, and just this month started to post--and only on subjects I feel involve me/my role in the community.
You are right that there are many guy-oriented blogs that tell women to shut up, and they are sexist/misogynist. They create an unwelcoming environment for people based solely on the poster's perceived gender. Maybe that's a bad thing to do on any blog, including/especially feminist ones.
I infer this as a claim that anyone who asks men to "shut up and listen" is being sexist.
You are equating the "unwelcome environment" for men on feministing (something that I, a man, have never experienced) to male-dominated fora, where women really are unwelcome.
To compare the "unwelcome environment" for men on feministing (which is BS) to women's struggles to be heard in most of the outside world is ignorant. To make such a comparison proves that you aren't listening.
"You are equating the "unwelcome environment" for men on feministing (something that I, a man, have never experienced) to male-dominated fora, where women really are unwelcome."
no, xenu01 made that comparison first. ErikB simply responded to it.
And as for the unwelcome environment, I have experienced it--that isn't to say it dominates, but from time to time it arises here. Earlier, Naught posted a link to the male pill discussion, and many comments were openly hostile towards men. Eventually, the community reproached that attitude, but not before many had endorsed it. Please understand that ErikB's experiences are as valid as your own.
"I infer this as a claim that anyone who asks men to "shut up and listen" is being sexist."
nice inference. Funny how I didn't actually say that, you just assumed that's what I meant. Even stranger how both other sections of my post carefully lay out what I think about listening and its importance for allies, eliminating the need to infer an outlandish position from the section that has nothing to do with the phrase 'shut up and listen'.
In case there was confusion, let me clarify. The original poster was arguing that the existence of forums that are unwelcoming to females would theoretically justify feminist forums being unwelcome to males. I think this is a flawed argument. Simply put, two wrongs don't make a right. At no point did I ever say feministing created such an environment, nor did I intend to send that message. And I most certainly did not connect that to the phrasing of 'shut up and listen'.
where in his comment did he call the commentor or feministing sexist against men?
This!
Thank you. :)
By being male feminists, we are resigning our abilities to be taken seriously in patriarchal spaces because we prefer to advocate for feminism and attacking the patriarchy. Because we are men and therefore meet the minimum requirement for admission into sexist spaces does not mean we condone those spaces. Instead, we would prefer to be working against them, so we end up in places like feministing instead of those sexist blogs.
We may not always agree but we are here in good faith, working for the same thing, and have given up patriarchal benefits and undermined quite a bit of our own privilege already to get it. Provided we check our privilege appropriately, and work seriously for woman's issues (which comes from listening!), why shouldn't we get a fair shake here at feministing?
Because I don't follow the logic that we should be purely subservient here because we can choose not to be elsewhere, provided we swallow our feminism.
Again, there is an important difference between demanding that someone be subservient all the time purely because he is a man and between asking someone to check his "I am right because I am a man" privilege at the door.
Once, I had a very very difficult conversation with someone I love very very much about the fact that, due to a past abusive relationship, I do not like being fought with in the car. It makes me feel unsafe because I can not escape.
At first, our conversations about it were basically, "Sorry I'm screwed up!'
"Well, stop it. I'm not scary."
Eventually, I realized that I'm NOT screwed up, but a human being who learned that it is best to have an escape hatch when my male significant other is angry. There is nothing wrong with my fiance- he is a sweet man who would never hurt me- but my instincts are as they are. What was important for me was to say to him, "I lived through those abusive relationships. You were not there at the time. Therefore, in this context, in regards to my feelings of safety or lack of safety, I am the expert."
Similarly, if I were to go onto Renee's blog (http://www.womanist-musings.com/) and tell her that, as a white woman, I know better than her what is and is not racist, I'd be wrong. I'd be wrong because I am white and she is not, and she is immersed in the cultural context every single day.
In fact, the OP said something almost exactly like that.
I agree. That's why I said "provided we check our privilege appropriately"--because pretending to be the expert on women's experiences is NOT checking privilege. But that doesn't mean our own experiences as male feminists are not welcome in the door.
Certainly, I see people here making every effort to make honest-to-goodness male feminists feel welcome- the irritation is when those experiences you speak of are more important, and more valid, than those of the female posters. Because ultimately, the feminist movement is about the advancement of WOMEN and their right to be treated equally.
Again, I agree. But none of the feminist men on this thread have tried to assert that their experiences are more important or more valid than those of female posters. At worst, they have suggested that they feel their experiences have been invalidated based on their gender--true, this is often a privilege issue when speaking on women's issues--but I do believe that many of them feel this way for reasons other than privilege and sometimes justly so.
Ultimately, the feminist movement is about equality. We can't let male issues drive feminisim, because women's issues is its heart, but we can't pretend to care about gender equality without actually responding the experiences of male feminists sometimes, especially in our feminist community.
Being pro-feminist does not remove us from Patriarchy or erase our privilege. Please!
That is a gross misrepresentation of my position. But feminist ideals do injure us in regard to the patriarchy and reduce our privilege in some areas. Those are good things, not bad things, but we deserve to have it acknowledged. My feminist behavior has certainly cost me socially and professionally. I do not lament that, but to hold me accountable for the patriarchy is not fair. "Please!"
Rather than reply to a particular comment, I just want to note that I've been commenting to Feministing for years, using an obviously male username, and I have never, not once, been attacked for being a man.
I have certainly been disagreed with, but I never felt like it was about my gender.
I concur.
I'm a dude. I'm a feminist. Can we move on please?
Continuing to insist that one deserves to be taken seriously because of taking part in a movement as a more privileged ally is unnecessarily antagonistic. Part of being an ally is understanding that one is NOT the expert at hand and that one will not be taken seriously all of the time, most especially over others who experience disadvantages every day.
Continually forcing people into a defensive stance regarding their right to know better than you in a field which was founded due to a fundamental lack of rights awarded to the very people with whom you are engaging is ignorant and not productive.
Why not try more deeply to understand the intrinsic differences between being disabled, black, asian, middle-eastern, female, etc and being someone who is not those things but is sympathetic to their struggles?
"Continually forcing people into a defensive stance regarding their right to know better than you in a field which was founded due to a fundamental lack of rights awarded to the very people with whom you are engaging is ignorant and not productive."
It seems to me that many men on this forum believe they are not doing this, or at least not to the degree to which they are accused of doing so. You are painting male feminists with a very broad brush, implying that we do not:
" try more deeply to understand the intrinsic differences between being disabled, black, asian, middle-eastern, female, etc and [be] someone who is not those things but is sympathetic to their struggles"
I think many of the men in these threads are not trying to cop out of doing those things, nor trying to get a cookie. They are trying to say that they are not ignorant, aren't trying to take over the movement, and refrain from forcing women into defensive stances about their experiences. If they do in fact do these things, call them out on an individual basis and not with a blanket statement like 'male feminists are like _________'.
I deliberately stepped back and did NOT call anyone out on an individual basis because I read and deliberated on this:
"A reminder though: keep the comments clean and refrain from using personal attacks."
Also, my grammar was, in fact, carefully thought-out and I believe it to be correct.
I didn't mean to correct your grammar; I used a quotation as a part of a sentence and I changed the verb tense to match the sentence I connected it to. You are right that your original grammar was perfect, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
I agree that personal attacks are not good, but I think there's a line between personal correction/pointing out a flaw and attacking someone. That being said, there certainly is no clear cut line between the two, and a more generalizing approach was definitely a legitimate way to avoid that issue.
Thank you for explaining the motivation behind that choice. Sorry I kind of jumped on you for generalizing (feminist training >_
The above comment was not directed to Ronin and MikeT's comments directly above it, btw.
I think I'm going to remove myself from this thread at this time and go read Kindred in the bath.
:)
In reply to this post, and Gular's, I have only one thing to say, and it isn't mine, but Andrea Dworkin's addressing a gathering of anti-sexist men:
"The men’s movement seems to stay stuck on two points. The first is that men don’t really feel very good about themselves. How could you? The second is that men come to me or to other feminists and say: “What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this.”
And I say: don’t tell me. Tell the pornographers. Tell the pimps. Tell the warmakers. Tell the rape apologists and the rape celebrationists and the pro-rape ideologues. Tell the novelists who think that rape is wonderful. Tell Larry Flynt. Tell Hugh Hefner. There’s no point in telling me. I’m only a woman. There’s nothing I can do about it. These men presume to speak for you. They are in the public arena saying that they represent you. If they don’t, then you had better let them know.
Then there is the private world of misogyny: what you know about each other; what you say in private life; the exploitation that you see in the private sphere; the relationships called love, based on exploitation. It’s not enough to find some traveling feminist on the road and go up to her and say: “Gee, I hate it.”
Say it to your friends who are doing it. And there are streets out there on which you can say these things loud and dear, so as to affect the actual institutions that maintain these abuses. You don’t like pornography? I wish I could believe it’s true. I will believe it when I see you on the streets. I will believe it when I see an organized political opposition. I will believe it when pimps go out of business because there are no more male consumers.
You want to organize men. You don’t have to search for issues. The issues are part of the fabric of your everyday lives."
This is my point, here. I am not interested, as a woman and a feminist, in praising you for being feminist or for identiyfing as such. I also don't like encountering male privilege on a site that is or should be a space for women. Please, know your position: this is our place, these are our voices. As questioning? said - can you imagine feeling as marginalized in real life as you are, according to you, here? And, like Dworkin says: don't tell us - tell other men, and use your privilege to get something across to people that won't take it from us. But don't come here expecting praise and an equal say in our agendas. This is ours, not yours.
Quoting Dworkin on this topic seems rather disingenuous. She was practically a walking stereotype of feminism as hatred for men.
Reducing dworkin to a 'walking stereotype of feminism as hatred for men' is a horrible thing to do. That is buying in to the backlash, within feminism and larger society, against certain forms of feminism and based on a faulty reading of her work. Aside from that - does her 'image' matter to what she is telling us here?
I've read enough of Dworkin's writing myself to form an opinion; I didn't just hear someone else say that she once said "all heterosexual sex is rape" and think "lol feminazi." (If it's not clear, I'm aware she didn't say that).
I'm going to ignore her sex-negative opinions here.
First, I was pointing out the irony in quoting Dworkin on a discussion of men and feminism, when she's most known for being a strongly anti-male feminist. It's like quoting Martin Luther in a discussion about the use of logic in religion. However, that alone does not invalidate what she had to say.
In a practical sense, the relevance is not per se her "image" but rather the message sent by her work. Let me explain. In her speech, she said "men come to me or to other feminists and say: 'What you’re saying about men isn’t true. It isn’t true of me. I don’t feel that way. I’m opposed to all of this.'" This would be a stronger statement coming from one of the many other feminists who are less (or not at all) virulently anti-male. It's hardly surprising that she has men occasionally tell her "I'm not like that."
Is there some truth in what she's saying? Yes, of course. A feminist man who spends all his time complaining to feminist women about their unfair treatment of men is obviously not really a feminist. However, she's also setting up a false dichotomy - you can either point out her misandrony, or protest [bad stuff], not both.
I have a hard time believing this blog is a space for women when the bloggers regularly approve community posts written by male feminists and even crosspost or link to them on the main blog. This is a space for feminists. Please don't pretend to speak for this blog and this community when you suggest excluding men.
whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to ziggy's above comment.
I was speaking for myself, as I assume everyone is. And I was expressing a wish and my opinion, that men think twice before claiming a voice on a space for women and women's issues.
Besides, any comments/thought about the speech I had quoted? Still think it's a good lesson.
I don't understand why self-identifying as a feminism should ever be a moral obligation, like *SOME* make it out to be, rather than a personal and very private choice, which depends on whether self-identifying yourself as a feminist advances or hurts one's other agendas - some of which are possibly more important than women's issues. For instance, identifying myself as a feminist would more often than not hurt my reputation, even if I generally symphatize more with feminism than with its antithesis. However, you only hurt yourself when you demand men or even women to self-identify, and doing so is certainly arrogant. Don't deny it.
This post was wonderful.
I love me my male feminists, but just today one of my posts was sidetracked by those who did not understand and therefore could not read past my expressions of emotion regarding public harassment.
While it is very useful in learning how to speak to those who may not understand, it can also be a silencing tool, and that is something I do not enjoy in this forum. I love input from those who have not had the same experience; but those who have not must understand that certain experiences evoke emotions that they are unaware of, having not been through the same events.
Similarly, I am cautious to watch my speech when responding to posts involving transgender, homosexual, male, and/or other racial issues. I'll contribute my help and my knowledge, but certainly not my opinion on whether their own view of their situation is right or wrong.
So, male feminists, you're good too. But you have to be aware of the fact that sometimes, you really had to have been there, and realize that, since we have been there, we have the right to determine what the issues are, without negative feedback (especially if it is the type along the lines of "you're overreacting" or "you are too angry," no matter what the issue. That has been the way to devalue the feminist movement for years- even if it is not meant to do so. But we know that already). Not just male feminists either- we all must be aware of this.
Correction from me:
Scratch "homosexual" and replace with "other sexual orientations."