I wrote this as a response to the Tribune article on the University of Chicago group Men in Power (MiP). I don't know if it will be published. Regardless, I think it's important for male allies to speak up even if the mainstream media will not acknowledge us. If you have not read the article, you can read it at the Tribune website, or check this thread:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015708.html
I am writing this letter in response to Sara Olkon’s article about Men in Power (MiP) at the University of Chicago. What MiP President Steve Saltarelli fails to recognize is the mere fact that MiP is able to get press coverage in the Chicago Tribune and various media outlets without yet being a sanctioned student group, let alone accomplishing anything, is proof of systemic white male privilege. Men are losing jobs in this economy because there are more men with jobs than women - which is why advocacy for women in the workforce is so important in the first place. I'm sure there are many women who wished they could have made the money that those in the auto or financial industry made prior to the collapse of the economy but were unable to because of the glass ceiling.
I believe consciousness raising groups for men are utterly important. It is necessary to establish a safe space where men can discuss their feelings and are free to be outside the gender box, that is very important in dismantling patriarchy - since patriarchy requires men to conform to rigid straitjackets that deny us of our right to be emotional and display both "feminine" and "masculine" characteristics. The fact is, that in a patriarchy men have systemic power and the framing of a group as men needing more power suggests misogyny, a backlash to feminism, and reiterates the patriarchal constructs that Saltarelli claims MiP is trying to disrupt, and that is laughable.
As a pro-feminist male activist who does outreach and education to men and boys about our role in sexual violence prevention, I am disgusted with Saltarelli’s assumption that men are somehow oppressed by living in our society – a society which values men’s voices over women’s. Men are discriminated against – by both men and women – for not fitting into rigid gender roles prescribed to us by patriarchy. This is what we need to dissect. If we are to end sexism in all its forms, we must begin discussing what it means to “be a man”. We will find “being a man” in a patriarchy means dominating women, gay men and transpeople.
And yet, somehow, holding men accountable for their action is seen as anti-male, while each day we blame women for living in domestic violence situations. We blame women for “getting raped”. We downplay women’s frustration and anger about street harassment because these are things women are told they have to live with. Additionally, any victories women make in politics or the workforce are attributed to “reverse sexism,” not a woman’s ability to lead or make good decisions. If Saltarelli and MiP truly want to eradicate sexism, they must first begin to address the role men have in perpetuating sexist systems. I urge Saltarelli and all men to ask a woman in your life who you are close to - mother, sister, girlfriend, or teacher - about how their life would be different if the threat of sexual violence didn't exist. The second part of this challenge is - listen. As men we are taught to come up with a solution for everything. It is hard to unlearn subconscious behaviors, but instead of trying to devise a solution, listen to what these women have to say about how their lives are regularly affected by the threat of sexual violence. In doing so, I believe this challenge forces us to examine our own male privilege and ultimately aid us in our goal of creating a safer world for everyone - for our generation and for those to come.
Stephen Adler
Founder / President
Men Against Sexual Violence at University of Illinois-Chicago
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Men in Power" already are in power.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14022
This and WIN!
Very well written, thank you.
Thanks so much. Sadly, I only know one or two men who would self-identify as feminists and I'm so impressed with your letter.
Hooray male allies!
Excellent.
This was a wonderful letter!
Does this organization target men in communities who by most socio-economic indicators (lack of education, lack of earning potential, few resources in community, etc) really do lack power? Or is it more about hoarding power?
Regarding job loss:
Necessity was probably the largest driver of women in the workforce in the 20th century. History might be repeating itself here except in reverse.
Anecdotal reports on NPR, Yahoo! and other new outlets speak of more and more men staying home with their kids in response to job losses. This might be the hurdle that's needed to normalize men having more of a strong involvement at home.
You just need a critical mass...
Whatever happens though, American men will have to deal, because the trend is that economic power is shifting to other countries...the glory days look to be coming to an end.
"Men are losing jobs in this economy because there are more men with jobs than women"
The U.S. unemployment rate for men is 9.4% (as of April) vs. 7.1% of women. You are however correct that the men who do have jobs have, on average, better-paying jobs than women who have jobs. Check your facts!
Source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Actually, the US workforce was comprised of 47% women, 53% men as of November. So there are, in fact, less women with jobs than men, but that gap is narrowing due to the difference in the unemployment rate.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/02/07/6504/
Thank you for pointing me to that link. Regardless of the current differentials between men and women who have jobs, this statistic proves my point - there were more men with jobs to begin with than women.
That's caused by a larger number of women than men not being in the labor force, ie, voluntarily not seeking work. You're technically correct, but, first, it's a misleading statistic to look at and second, it doesn't account for more of the lost jobs being men's jobs.
The reason for that is quite simple - more men that women are employed in the hardest-hit areas, construction, auto industry, and manufacturing. It's not hard to find this out.
Just use a bit of logic. 82% of the job losses are men. Was 82% of the workforce men at the start of the recession?
Is it really because of personal choice, or are there other systemic factors leading to women not being employed in as high of numbers as men?
My main point is that MiP is a backlash to women making gains in the workplace and is not acknowledging that men have power - much more than women - already.
I don't have a huge problem with your "main point," I have a problem with you misusing and misinterpreting statistics to support it.
These seem like kind of hostile responses to one statement in this letter; is there some back story here that we're missing?
Those two statistics do not contradict each other, they are about two different things. The BLS statistics on unemployment is not a statistic of "people without paid jobs". They count job-less people who have actively contacted a place where potential jobs are offered, within the last week (from the time of the survey). The US government's official "unemployment rate", thus, does not include people who have done no such thing the last week, either because they were sick, because they were care-takers of someone (who might be sick), because they have "given up" or because there's simply no jobs to be had - and, quite relevant for this discussion, it does not include "house wifes".
So, we have a higher percentage of unemployed men because the overall group, the "active workforce", have more men than women. There are more men with jobs than women, even though there are more men who qualify for the official government definition of "unemployed".
You are awesome!
I don't even know where to begin... I could respond but I feel it would be pointless and I've had it with ignorance today. One thing I will say, treating women "like gold" is objectifying and sexist bullshit. To claim you care about women as much as you do, you sure like to put them on a pedestal a whole lot. Which is crap.
Don't bother trying. Just a troll.
You = troll
That's weird. Stephan A, the OP, was responding to a comment that went against site rules and was deleted, but after it was deleted, it made it look like he was responding to his own post. Eh.
Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering wtf was happening. That's what I get for engaging with trolls.
hahha. OMG i said we ought to treat each other well and with respect, i shared some personal history with you, i shared my views, and my message was deleted. hahaha
"To claim you care about women as much as you do, you sure like to put them on a pedestal a whole lot. Which is crap"
hahah, so instead of treating women like gold i should treat them like crap? that is certainly what my abusive mother's partner did.
wow. its is a real shame that anything which mildly does not conform to your views gets deleted. oh well, your loss! i will be a gentleman and simply let you stew in your own hatred and delusions.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but... treating women with respect, dignity and acknowledging that they are not "golden," impeccable human beings, but rather individuals deserving of decency is not much to ask. There is a middle ground. Putting women on a pedestal furthers sexist systems of oppression. I obviously do not condone any type of men's violence against women but I also believe chivalry continues to further sexism in patriarchy.
Also, being a "gentleman" or "chivalrous" implies women are too weak to do anything for themselves. That is the last thing I'll say on the matter.
Dude, are you shitting me!? It implies the man is weak by seeking female approval, which in most cases doesn't work. In fact, women are more likely to use men who are chivalrous and gentlemen like. The guys who get all the female attention are the ones who don't pay attention to women at all.
I also think chivalry is for people you love, such as your wife or long time girlfriend.
I also believe treating women like gold is bullshit.
spetsnaz, please look here:
http://www.feministing.com/faqs.html
and
http://www.feministing.com/about.html#aboutComments
your post violated the site rules by making a personal attack against the OP. If you want to continue a discussion, please revise your comment and re-post it. However, since your post was arguing against basic tenants of feminism, and this is a feminist website, it may not be the proper place for your argument. If you are truly interested in having a constructive debate, you may want to check out this blog:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
and see if Feministing is the proper place to argue your views.
Yes, why not? Why not treat women equally as you treat men, even if that means sometimes treating them like crap?
Very well written I hope It has an impact. As far as what it means to be a man, to me it means taking a pee standing up that’s abut it.
Awesome!!!
OH MY GOD!!!! I just found the article you're responding to.
http://www.chicagomaroon.com/2009/3/2/men-in-power
It's nauseating. "the much anticipated 'how to draft a prenup workshop'".
"I hope the above, and the successes of next quarter will show that MiP will be a far cry from an “old boys club”—after all, its members will all be pretty young".
"Through our “Little Men in Power” program, we hope to provide middle school and elementary students with the skills and knowledge necessary to become the next generation of this country’s leaders"
and the kicker...
"Through our fishing, hunting, and flag-football retreats, we hope to cultivate close relationships with many individuals and organizations in different sectors of power—including business, politics, and academia."
It KIIILS me that this anyone so stupid could be a third year college student at a highly respected university!!
The theme of the first national, multi-thousand person protest against Men In Power (if this is actually a real life national organization that's trying to do campus organizing) has GOT to be "Fight the Power".
Thank you so much for this.
I'm a new member to the community, but I blogged about this at my tumblr (the-activista.tumblr.com) immediately after someone sent me that article.
The idea that a masculinity group, or at least a group marketed as such, which has such potential- to break down masculinity in the college environment, remove the sexual pressures society forces on young men, teach young men the rights and wrongs of consent and sexual assault- is going to dedicate its time to making men better connected in MEDICINE, LAW, AND BUSINESS- three fields women struggle the most with- really upsets me.
Here's to you for realizing that feminism has never excluded men, but has worked on their behalf as well. Perhaps instead of backlash, these men should be worrying about the integrated goals that feminist groups run by women and men strive for: a world of genderless opportunity.
(Disclaimer to MiP: if you need to clarify you aren't sexist, there's probably a problem.)
"women are more likely to use men who are chivalrous and gentlemen like. The guys who get all the female attention are the ones who don't pay attention to women at all."
this misogynism has NO PLACE in feministing. His Dudeness is obviously only here because he craves negative attention, and he needs to be banned NOW!
WIN WIN WIN AND MORE WIN WITH LOW FAT WIN ON THE SIDE
As a woman am I sick and tired of the male bashing because I have many wonderful male friends, brothers, and a father whom I adore. They've always been encouraging while I've had WOMEN sabotage me in the work place. I've seen women whose BEST FRIENDS have slept with and stolen their husbands!
How dare we attack men for where we are today when we women need to clean up our houses first! Yes, there are SOME men who are pigs, and there are SOME women who are a disgrace to the female gender.
I suggest you bitter angry women direct your anger elsewhere instead of having your constant "victim" mentality! We are our own worst enemies but you won't hear Oprah talking about this. Women love to sit and whine, bitch and moan and blame the men but at what point do we take responsibility for our lives and stop the blame game?
No wonder we can't get any respect from men when, apparently, casual Friday means looking like a slut! Enough already!
Right, because the people you know and see represent everybody else's experiences. Talk about blinding privilege.
It's also telling how you come here and preach about seeing men (and women) as individuals (some good some bad), yet you are more than willing to let men as a group off the hook for not respecting women as a group because SOME women choose to dress inappropriately at work.
Sounds like you need to stick around.
awesome letter steve, as always. do you know if it got published?
To those misquoting Stephen Adler (especially Naught), I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. (Though I have my doubts about you.) Stephen said there are more men losing their jobs. That is a NUMBER, not a statistic (PERCENTAGE), yet there are replies accusing him of misleading.
For every 1,000 paid workers, if 53% are men (530 workers) and 47% are women (470 workers), then a 9.4% unemployment rate for men is 49 paid workers; 7.1% unemployment rate for women is 33 paid workers. (Women never get fired from their unpaid work!)
Stephen is absolutely correct.
To Naught, et al, misquoting someone is the surest way to have everything you say discounted.
This is a really great post. Thank you, Stephen A. It's great to have a guy on our side for once. :)
It's odd to demand a men's group instead address women's issues.
Especially considering when anyone points out that feminists don't address men's issues, feminists get very angry and tell men that they should make their own groups to do that.
Point is, stop demanding men further feminist goals and not their own.
Exactly! There was this one stat about how there are 9 women's groups at the college and this is the first one for men.
Hypothetical Questions: if a tenth women's group were founded at U of C, would it be called misandric? If not, then why is Men in Power considered misogynist???
Amen to that Multipass. "You men should form groups, but to talk about what we think you should talk about and not what you think is important." Rinse, lather, repeat.
"The fact is, that in a patriarchy men have systemic power and the framing of a group as men needing more power suggests misogyny, a backlash to feminism, and reiterates the patriarchal constructs that Saltarelli claims MiP is trying to disrupt, and that is laughable."
This is ridiculous, assuming that a patriarchy benefits ever male to such a degree that NO male will ever have a need for an organization meant just to help them accomplish their personal goals and then suggesting that such an organization somehow suggests misogyny is just plain ignorance. I have a white male friend that attempted to get into Harvard last year but was denied. And by saying this you are suggesting that because we live in a patriarchal society, any mens organization meant to help him accomplish this goal is somehow giving all men more power and therefore further subjugating women. This is probably my only post that will ever contain anything purposely rude, but your point is ridiculous.
"I have a white male friend that attempted to get into Harvard last year but was denied."
Stop the presses! Hold all work on feminism! Everyone organize, because a white dude didn't get into Harvard. Clearly, men as a class need help getting a leg up on the competition. Certainly makes more sense than pointing out that most people, even white dudes, who apply to Harvard don't get in.
On the off chance that this was satire, I did laugh out loud. For real.