My generation has grown up during the backlash against feminism. We’ve been told all the important work had been done and feminism was no longer necessary. One way feminists have responded to the backlash is by deliberately opening up the movement, actively demonstrating that the battle against oppression of women can and should involve everyone.
However, “everyone else” is too often treated as just cismen (those people who are identified male at birth and self identify as male). The language becomes “women and men,” and the refrain is repeated: “patriarchy hurts men too.”
Talking about “women and men” instead of exclusively “women” in feminist spaces is an attempt at inclusion. However, this language ends up reinforcing the notion that there are only two kinds of people – men and women – and erases everyone else. This usage of the compulsory gender binary excludes all of us who do not fit; gender non-conformists whose identities fall outside an incredibly limited conception of gender where there are only two options.
The compulsory gender binary is an essential tool of patriarchy. It forces people into manageable boxes that fit into a hierarchical gender system. Feminist organizers that speak only about “women and men” reinforce the binary and therefore support a system of oppression that targets women. Language plays a critical role in gender politics, so how we choose to refer to people in general is an important feminist issue.
The recent feminist refrain that “patriarchy hurts men too” needs to be challenged. There are certainly cismen who experience patriarchal oppression. This can be because of some degree of gender non-conformity such as not following heterosexual norms. There is also a strong link between patriarchy and white supremacy that negatively impacts men of color. These are all topics worth addressing further.
But, generally speaking, cismen benefit from patriarchy. That’s what it’s all about - giving them power and privilege, access to knowledge, wealth, and control over everyone else - and making sure they maintain that privilege.
The claim packed into this statement, that men should become involved in feminism because it helps them too, seems a poor choice for cultivating allies. To be effective organizers feminist men must work from an understanding of their own privilege. We do cismen a disservice by suggesting they should feel included in feminism because they are also hurt by patriarchy. Men should be conscious of their privilege, how to use it strategically, and how to avoid replicating oppressive patterns within the feminist community.
Further, this argument once again centers the experiences of cismen. Feminists should be focused on raising up the voices of those who experience gender-based oppression, not replicating a power structure that values the lives and stories of cismen over all other people.
Patriarchy most hurts people who do not fit into the narrowly defined category “male.” The current feminist focus on men can often lead to the exclusion and marginalization of trans and gender non-conforming folk and to an uncritical inclusion of cismen in feminism. While expanding the base of our movement is important, it is also crucial to do so in a way that does not end up excluding other potential allies or compromise our critical analysis.
Further reading: TransFeminism/CisFeminism: Why Can't We Be Friends?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14464
I'm not sure if this is in response to http://community.feministing.com/2009/06/marketing-feminism-to-men.html or not,
The claim packed into this statement, that men should become involved in feminism because it helps them too, seems a poor choice for cultivating allies.
This requires explanation. Are you afraid that involved men would be interested in issues where men are disproportionately the victims? (Like suicide rates, to be totally non-contraversial.) Or do you mean you think that the kind of society generally advocated by feminists is not in mens' best interests? (Which seems more or less unjustifiable, but you're free to try.) Or some third option I'm not seeing?
Thanks for the comment Brian.
This post was written in response to language I've found problematic as long as I've been involved in feminism.
Regarding that specific quote - I do believe that yes, we all benefit from the success of social justice movements in a very broad way. But feminism is about combating patriarchy which greatly benefits cismen and disenfranchises everyone else in very concrete ways. Potential male allies should be trusted with the knowledge that they are becoming involved in a movement that most directly benefits people who are not them. "Patriarchy hurts men too" feels almost like an attempt to trick men into becoming feminists, which I think is ultimately harmful.
Okay, I understand.
But I think you're wrong. I think, in a completely selfish way, that if I gave up the benefits I receive as a man, but was freed of my gender role simultaneously, I'd be much better off than I am now. Keep in mind that feminism generally isn't advocating that women be treated like men, but that (at least, in principle), both men and women be treated better than they are now (in practice, with less focus on men's treatment and gender role, but actually pretty often, since these things are all connected anyhow.)
Preventing the patriarchy from encouraging men and boys from resorting to violence or emotional abuse, to stop operating under a sense of entitlement and domination is a central goal to feminism. Acknowledging that the existing patriarchal system actually hurts men is not only complementary but essential to that end.
I really don't see a trick here. Yes, the patriarchy ultimately hurts all those that aren't cis men more so than cis men, but this doesn't mean that the damage cis men have incurred from the patriarchy is insignificant and that responding to this damage is a "trick" or somehow suspect and unhelpful to feminism. Rather, since the ways the patriarchy hurts men (determining self worth by capacity for physical and emotional violence, for instance) contribute directly to the ways the patriarchy hurts women and others deemed less valuable by the patriarchy (rape, transphobic violence etc.), the patriarchy hurts men/women issue is really the same.
Case in point: its pretty clear that western masculinity is failing men while it hurts women. When 90% percent of convicted criminals are men, it doesn't take much to realize that the patriarchy encourages a level of destructive behavior from males that is bad for everyone. We teach men to dominate with violence and scratch our heads when they rape and murder and wonder why so many women are being hurt and the men are being sent prison. Men aren't naturally like this--we teach it to them, we encourage it and we tell them something is wrong with them if they don't like it. That's patriarchy hurting men and it is a real fundamental feminist problem.
Josh -
Thanks for this post - it reminds me that this isn't about the battle of the sexes, but rather, to end sexism for all types of people.
I have a trans friend who stopped the process of becoming a woman because he saw how he was being treated by society as a woman and didn't like it. Yet, he still doesn't fit into the male gender. In the end, it seems, we need to expand our feminism ...and it's a part that, I do admit, we sometimes fail.
Even as a gender/women's studies major and all my work within the feminist community, I know little about the trans issue. I think it's time we start focusing on that.
I guess I should clarify that, in response to your post, we should indeed do away with "patriarchy hurts men, too," because it does not succintly sum up the need for feminism and prescribes feminism as merely about women and men.
But that's the thing, too, though: how do we get across all these issues of complexity without first getting some men to give up male privilege, as you identified? Mustn't we develop our message through a gender-binary context?
The point is: if we, as feminists, are having a tough time with understanding and agreeing on certain issues, throwing complex theories such as what you suggested might just be more troublesome and time consuming.
It's late and I am rambling. Sorry. More tomorrow.
Would cleaving "masculinity" as a socially constructed gendered identity away from "men" (as some feminists do with "femininity" and "women") help?
When I first read it, I thought that this post was about opening up more to transgendered people.
Well, the fact is, in non-radical-liberal discourse,
men = persons with male genitalia
women = persons with female genitalia
It is generally socially acceptable for those with intersexed conditions to choose their gender.
I see this as arguing semantics, honestly. When we say "men and women", it is meant to include the entire human race, and would to any random passerby.
Good job misunderstanding the post and failing to use your brain.
Not so much. Lefties develop in the same sexist culture as righties. Even the most liberal people don't think of trans people when they talk about women and men. I'll use myself as an example. When I talk about men and women, I'm talking about anyone who identifies as one or the other, whether they're trans or cis. But when I talk about who patriarchy hurts, I'm thinking about cis and trans women. I don't think of trans men. I don't purposely do this. It's just an automatic thought. Of course, trans men do suffer in a patriarchy. Anybody who doesn't fit into "man" or "woman," whether culturally or physically, suffers in a patriarchy. But not all of those people are included all the time in feminist discourse.
Can:
You seem fundamentally unclear on the concept. Your failure to grasp the concepts discussed is painful.
In non-leftist, non-liberal terms, here's some clarification:
The patriarchy (what you refer to as "society") defines two sexes: MALE and NOT MALE.
MALE means, of course, everybody born with an easily-identifiable set of male genitalia.
NOT MALE means everybody not born with male genitalia. That's females, hermephroditic people, people living with gender dysphoria, and anyone who identifies or ends up coloring outside the lines of MALE in spite of identifiable genital apparatus.
Here are a couple of basic feminist concepts:
-MALE is not the only recognizable sex
-MALE is not the only identifiable sex
-The declaration that there is a universal default sex, and that it is MALE, is also incorrect
Furthermore, these are only "sexes," since sex is the only purely biological concept at work here. Gender is a construct of (patriarchy) society, enforced based on what a person's sex is perceived by others to be. Think of gender as an identity - like your name, it was probably slapped on you by other people. Your curly brown hair, your lousy complexion, and your sex all live in your chromosomes. Your name (and your gender) do not.
Here's an example of this principle in action:
If a "man" develops cancer and must have his testicles or prostate removed, is he still a man?
If a "woman" develops cancer and must have a breast, ovaries, or uterus removed, is she still a woman?
Is either person less of man/woman than they were to start with, for lack of a body part?
No.
So if a woman without a breast or womb is still a woman and a man without testicles or prostate is still a man, why can't a girl with a penis be a girl?
If a person suffers an accident (such as a fire) which renders their genitalia indistiguishable, do they still have a sex? If a person suffers an accident (such as a fall) which renders their genitalia unuseable, do they still have a sex?
Yes.
The logic is very simple. We don't perceive a person's gender as being diminished by the loss of primary or secondary physical sex characteristics because on some subconscious level, we realize that physical sex has a lot less to do with gender than social definition. In my experience, only people who derive some sort of satisfaction or sense of self-affirmation from insisting on the patriarchal definition of MALE and NOT MALE can't / won't follow the logic. These are the people who persist in defining the world through the male-centric idea that sex equals gender and male is the default.
Sex is one lousy chromasome. That's all. It turns a fetus male / female and even then it doesn't always work. Actual human development, even just of reproductive capacity, is a highly complex process ten or twelve years down the road from that one little chromasome. Triggered in its ultimate course for most people by that chromasome, but saying it IS that chromasome is like saying a shout from the mountaintop IS the avalanche.
As I just demonstrated, MEN and WOMEN does not encompass the entire human race; MALE and FEMALE does not encompass the entire human race. You're the one who's trying to define the sexes/genders from which the entire rest of the human species is permitted to choose. Trying plead "semantics" is a cop-out: a half-baked recognition of the shortcoming of your own definition - and in the same breath you try to wiggle around what you yourself identify as a faulty definition.
That's the point of this article: modern, less radical feminism has a tendancy to backdrift into that patriarchal exclusiveness that equates sex and gender - leaving the entire human race with the same tired old problem.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Seems like the only men who truly benefit from a patriarchy are the actual patriarchs, the elites at the top exploiting everyone else (including less powerful men)...