I’m new to the feminist blogosphere (and this is my first community post!), so I hope I’m not totally off-base. I have read lots of information on “Patriarchy hurts men too” arguments. Most of this information centers around the idea that, although PHMT is a valid point, it has no real place in the comments sections of feminist blogs.
However, despite the fact that such discussions don’t really belong in a forum for women to discuss women’s issues, there is one situation in which the PHMT discussion becomes incredibly relevant: in discussions with men. After all, what better counterargument is there for anti-feminist men than pointing out the ways in which our society’s deeply ingrained patriarchal beliefs hurt them, as well?
I am repeatedly struck, when reading about rape culture, by the persistent thought that all this should offend men too ! Victim-blaming arguments only work in the context of a worldview in which men are no more than hedonistic beasts with no control over their carnal impulses. I’ll admit that, for many men, this portrayal serves as the perfect excuse. I have repeatedly heard men justify unacceptable behaviors (verbal and physical harassment, even rape) with statements like “Well, I’m a guy! We’re scum. We can’t help ourselves.” Such statements are almost always accompanied by a sheepish grin, feigned coyness, and/or a shrug. I’ll refrain from indulging in a long rant about those comments, in an effort to stay on topic. Why aren’t men offended by being painted this way? Why do they co-opt the language of the patriarchy and rape culture in order to excuse actions they know to be reprehensible? Surely, not all men are this way.
And indeed, I do believe that not all men are that way.
Perhaps when an otherwise-intelligent man makes a comment about a woman’s outfit saying it’s like she’s “asking to be raped,” (or, for that matter, any victim-blaming argument) it would be the perfect opportunity. Point out how terribly offensive to his fellow men it is to operate on the assumption that men’s tendency to “think with their penises” (again, WHY ARE MEN NOT OFFENDED BY THAT STATEMENT?) when they see a scantily-clad woman overrides their knowledge that no means no, and rape is wrong.
Furthermore, the whole “boys will be boys” meme, though often used as an excuse, should offend intelligent, thinking men. It seems that every offensive, violent, or downright idiotic action perpetrated by an individual man is shrugged off with “boys will be boys!” The clear implication is that boys will be…well…offensive, violent, and idiotic. Perhaps by bringing men’s attention to the extremely unflattering implications of the patriarchy’s popular excuses will help create more pro-feminist men, and increase widespread awareness of feminist ideals. After all, we’re not fighting against men. We ( not only “we” as feminists, but “we,” as intelligent citizens of the world with the ability to think independently) are fighting against an insidious, deeply ingrained set of beliefs that has been perpetuated for many years, and which is deeply damaging to both sexes.
I’m not advocating that PHMT discussions overtake the central concerns of feminism, but I think we would do well to include it in the discussion. We’re quick to acknowledge that it’s difficult for those with privilege to acknowlege that advantage—why not use to the ways patriarchy hurts men as an ice-breaker of sorts? Anti-feminist men are, in many cases, not villains, and not idiots. They’re just unable to recognize their privilege. The acknowlegment that PHMT could, in my opinion, serve as a great jumping-off point to awaken many men to the societal structures they work so hard to deny.
I have more to say on this topic (especially concerning men and body image), but I think I’m going to wait and post about it later if I seem to be on track so far. Like I said, I’m new at this.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: A Place for PHMT arguments.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16375
The protestations I've seen to "What about the menz?"-ing typically has to do with doing so on a post about women's issues. The implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) recommended solution being that one should just write a post about how the issue hurts men too, and then talk about that in the comments. Presumably, "what about the womenz"-ing would also be considered a derail there.
I think that it's possible to ask that question in a post about women's issues without it being a derail, but that doesn't seem to be typically how it goes.
Exactly. It's not that these arguments have no place on a feminist forum or in a discussion about issues which primarily affect women. The problem is that these arguments are often used to derail conversations, or distract attention from the issue at hand.
Except many times I have seen the OP make claims about masculinity and men, and then discussion of those claims are considered a derail. If the post genuinely did not discuss men that is one thing, many times the post was discussing men, was making assertions about men, but claim any contradiction of those assertions was a derail.
I have definitely seen that situation too. It's a fine line -- sometimes the original poster needs to be called out on saying things like "men are never oppressed ever!" or "all men secretly want to rape women" or "women have body image issues, and men never do." In that case, while the main point of the post is oppression of women, or rape culture, or women's body image issues, it's reasonable to point out that false generalizations about men are inaccurate and unhelpful (without changing the focus to a discussion of how men are oppressed, or men who aren't rapists, or men who have body image issues).
On the other hand, I've seen times when a response is really inappropriate. If the original post says something like "most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men," then replying by saying "but not all men are rapists!" is not helpful. Similarly, if the original post says that "body image issues interfere more with women's lives than men's," it's not really helpful to respond by saying "but my male friend is really insecure about being skinny / having a small penis / being short." In the first case, we all know men aren't rapists, and in the second, we all know that some men have body image issues too. Going over that territory just for the sake of pointing out that men suffer too can lead to a derail and a distraction from the issues at hand.
Definitely a fine line... does my distinction seem reasonable?
THIS.
The first distinction seems so but by claiming that women are more affected by men is an assertion that can be challenged. If the discussion is simply how women are affected then don't bring men into it. Don't talk about how women are more affected unless you feel that is an assertion which can be defended and backed up by evidence, and one which should be in the context of the thread.
If you mention how women are more affected then men by x it opens the door to a discussion of how men are equally affected by x. It opens the door. If the topic was genuinely how x affects women, then there is no need to attempt to disparage how men are affected by x.
I agree that Oppression Olympics rarely accomplish anything more than bickering and loudness, so I probably wouldn't have used the precise examples Lily A. did, but I think I can see what her two different categories boil down to -
"Patriarchy hurts men, too - so let's figure out how to change it" is productive and continues the conversation - the fuller our picture is of how our society works, the better equipped we are to change it.
"Patriarchy hurts men too, - so stop your bitching" is just an unhelpful derail intended to silence us, and the conversation can't move forward.
Similarly, if the original post says that "body image issues interfere more with women's lives than men's," it's not really helpful to respond by saying "but my male friend is really insecure about being skinny / having a small penis / being short."
I'm sure this comment was directed towards someone like me because I have made that comment in another thread. The only difference is that the entire post was addressing the issue of sex education and the issue of men worrying about their penis size and women thinking that if a man does not have a big penis then the sex will not be good. There were a considerable amount of people in the thread who were basically like "screw the menz i laugh at their insecurities" and so I would personally consider that to be derailing a topic instead of me defending the people I know who legitimately have that insecurity and are hurt by it.
I wasn't specifically referencing you or that post at all.
For the record, though, I agree with you -- I remember that thread, and was similarly frustrated by the responses of some posters who seemed to think that men's insecurities about penis size are insignificant. On the other hand, some women were saying that they legitimately experienced more physical pleasure with larger penises, and just because this might make some men insecure doesn't mean that these women shouldn't be able to share their experiences. Yes, society's obsession with penis size is mostly due to patriarchy... but clearly some women do prefer a larger penis for physical reasons that have nothing to do with patriarchy, and those women shouldn't be afraid to speak up in a feminist space. What do you think?
As you say (and I said earlier), the content of the original post matters in determining what constitutes a derail. I think we agree on that!
There's also the danger of appearing to belittle the experiences of the poster, whether or not that it the aim.
There's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in our society, it seems, that women are expected to have less power than men, and so women are given less power than men. Often, what power we can have comes from catering to the male-dominated mindset, which undermines the whole exercise. So when someone comes to a feminist space, one of the few spaces where women have power without strings, and bring in a PHMT argument, my knee-jerk reaction would probably be "Fuck off" too. Not because it's not true, but because it's a sort of invasion of what should be a safe space for women.
I still don't see how it is offensive or an invasion of someone's safe space if people (women) actually want to talk about it. Not all feminists are women, and so I don't think we should be like "well, because you are a man we cannot discuss the issues that you face because of you being a man." If someone does not want to talk about it, then they do not have to read the post or discuss it. I do that with some posts on here as I'm sure others do; sometimes it just does not interest me or I only want to read the post and not discuss it. I feel that by denying people the discussion of PHMT then we are just isolating ourselves more and sending out an even stronger message of not wanting men to be part of the feminist movement. No, I don't want this safe space to be taken over and have all the women on here fall silent, but I also do not think that will happen because we make this blog more inclusive to men (and to the women who want to talk about mens issues alongside womens issues.)
The key point of what you're saying is 'if women want to talk about it'. If we don't, then men need to be able to STFU, because frankly, this space isn't here for them, it's here for us.
To put it another way, when you're talking about your problems, 90% of the time you don't want someone jumping in with theirs. Sometimes, it can be useful in helping you deal with those problems. Other times, it's just stealing the conversation away from you, and serves no purpose except to stoke the other person's ego.
Awesome post!
I think some men aren't offended by those statements because it speaks to their very identity as men i.e. if you're not thinking about sex all the time, then there must be something wrong with you. Moreover, the more sexual you are, the more manly you are....so by saying 'you think with your penis' is actually a compliment--you are manly!
As for wearing sexy clothes and playing the blame game, again, society tells men that these women are wearing the sexy clothes FOR THEM, so of course, if that's not the case and they get confused, it's the woman's fault, not theirs.
While I do believe certain men are hurt by the patriarchy (specifically gay or metro sexual men) the overwhelming majority highly benefit from their privilege. Since they are benefiting from that why would they get offended when someone uses the excuse "boys will be boys" or some other patriarchal mantra to defend the actions of a particular male. I'm sick of having to cater to men. I have spent my entire life doing just that. Even in my feminism I spend most of valuable teaching time having to explain that no I don't want to control men, yes I shave my legs, no I am not a lesbian. ect, all things that their privilege perpetuates. I for one am sick of that. Its time that women get a place where we don't have to care about men and their tiny dicks and how that makes them feel bad. I want to have an open and honest discussion about how the patriarchy hurts women and all the ways that inflicts
You make a lot of legitimate points. However, I think that people who benefit from privilege are also hurt by it. To gain something simply because of who one is and how s/he is born* diminishes a person's individuality. When an individual has an advantage because of circumstance, s/he is never fully able to develop his/her individual skills and ideas to the point that s/he could with a full range of challenges.
"Since they are benefiting from that why would they get offended when someone uses the excuse 'boys will be boys' . . . "? For the same reason women should be offended by the idea that we should be taken care of because we're less competent/weaker than men. Just because a person is given an advantage because of a negative stereotype doesn't mean s/he can't be offended by the negative stereotype.
*I'm NOT talking about affirmative action here, I'm talking about societal privilege.
Identifying how societal structures affect different groups within a society is not about "catering" to anyone. Patriarchy = society. You can't study society and cut out half the people in it.
I'm not sure where you're coming from in not wanting to care about men and their "tiny dicks" (really? wtf?), but in order for feminism to cause societal shifts, we gotta shift everyone. We can't do that unless we talk about everyone. What causes rape culture? Where do men receive ideas about masculinity from? If we can change those ideas about masculinity, can we change rape culture? How do we go about it? It's all interconnected, and expressing the belief that changing patriarchial ideas about masculinity will benefit men as well as women isn't "catering."
And if you really can't understand why a man would be offended by the idea that "boys will be boys," I suggest reading blogs and books written by male feminists who are analyzing masculinity. Just because they benefit from it doesn't mean it's saying nice things about them.
my point is that a lot of men come on here and then make comments about the fact that we should feel sorry for them and continue to cater to them (I have heard the my penis is smaller than average and it makes me feel badly about myself comment enough times that it makes me want to puke) the point is there are plenty of places where they can go and be empowered. This is a female positive zone and by saying that we need to care about men more is taking away from that
You seem like a very angry individual who has you own unresolved issues with men (the tiny dicks comment, which I find greatly offensive because some men I know who are wonderful and caring individuals have that worry, so for you to go and say 'screw them' it makes ME want to puke.) I think you need to stop speaking for all women here and saying that just because you don't want to deal with male issues that all of us don't want to. Chill out and don't be so hurtful.
As a man, I understand that the primary focus of this site and others specifically geared to Feminist issues ought to be woman-centered, at least up front. Still, as other have said, both genders need to be involved in the dialogue to have Feminism be a success.
I am offended by "boys will be boys", don't get me wrong, but those of us who are not the stereotypical grunting, crotch-scratching type have a tendency to get frustrated at how few of us there are out there, comparatively speaking. If we mockingly refer to those who seem to delight in baser desires, what we're really saying is, "Why can't they just understand what we've realized for ourselves?" If you've ever felt out of step and wholly alien to other people before, then you'll understand precisely how we feel.
Nice comment Kevin.
Here's what bothers me about this "boys will be boys" stuff when it comes to discussing the prevention sexual violence. I'm talking about *prevention* here, I repeat:
So what do brothels and rape prevention have in common?
Well in some regards, brothels and rape prevention (and anti-violence campaigns) seek to address the exact same issue. Yet only one of these preventative measures gets accused of demonizing all men and painting all men as potential rapists.
For example, when discussing communities where brothels are usual and customary, the consensus seem to be that while not a perfect solution, when run fairly, brothels can be regarded as gatekeeper to minimize risks of violence toward women workers.
While I'm sure there is a degree of lack of safety for male escorts as well, the fact that so many communities have at least considered specifically female brothels in part for safety purposes, illustrates that most folks recognize a socio-sexual asymmetry that disadvantages women when it comes to sexual violence.
Now. On the other hand, when we talk about attenuating sexual violence in almost every other setting, I'm hearing a lot more men completely offended that society should have an interest in shifting some of the burden and responsibility of *prevention* from men to women.
I can only conclude that the belief or even the fear that that "boys will be boys" is widespread and profound as evidenced by people's general acceptance of brothels at least in theory. It's further distressing that the criteria by which preventative measures will be supported seems tied to some very specific outcomes, none of which have to do with improving safety or even a sense of fairness.
I agree with your basic point, but I got there another way.
Feminism starts with being about the empowerment of women and equality between the sexes, but it doesn't end there.
First of all, feminist activism must deal with intersectionality in order for it to be successful. The feminist movement will be a failure if it doesn't meet the needs of all women. And this requires that not only sexism in and of itself be dismantled, but also racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism.... all of the isms.
Second, feminist goals wont be accomplished by eliminating these isms individually, but will only succeed if the system that perpetuates them is dismantled.
The system is broad and doesn't just hurt women. Our entire ideologies about capitalism, individualism, and competition need to be examined, for how they create inequalities in society. As does any religious system that doesn't believe that all people are equal.
These issues effect men, and feminists forums are completely appropriate places for them to be discussed.
getting more directly to your point...
I don't think its necessary or productive to try to attract men to feminism by illustrating how sexism that primarily hurts women, can also hurt men. Men have the same capacity for compassion as everyone else, and can be drawn to the feminist movement without it being self serving. It also fundamentally misses the point to try to make these issues primary when selling feminism to men.
basically, I think its totally appropriate for mens issues to be addressed by the feminist movement. I don't think its appropriate for these issues to be made primary when they primarily hurt women.
THIS all the way. I totally agree that men's issues should not, by any means, take over the conversation on feminist forums but I do think that certain issues should be addressed and there should be progress made on how all of us working together can help fix them. Should we just exclude men when dealing with womens issues as well because they are the privileged? Or if they want to help should we deny them because they are not women? No, and so I think that if some women want to address mens issues and try and be allies to them, then we should go for it and not be made to feel bad for it. But we should most definitely not dismiss their issues just because we are angry at some men and end up generalizing all men to be evil.
I think alot of men just don't realize how much they are going to suffer from this issue: high chance of a successful sex assault charge (esp. falsified ones), harsher penalties for such, higher likelihood of such a charge, and basically no protection themselves from sexual predators (especially women).
So men suffer from rape culture because the occasional woman gets away with making a false accusation? Sorry, I don't really appreciate you perpetuating the myth that women make false claims of sexual assault with any significant frequency (I have yet to see evidence that false accusations of rape are any more common than false accusations of any other crime). And I also take issue with your claim that falsified sexual assault charges have a high chance of success. Most sexual assault is never reported, and a lot of sexual assault charges are unsuccessful -- where on earth are you getting the idea that there are all these women running around accusing men of rape for personal benefit???
Also, what do you mean that men have "no protection themselves from sexual predators (especially women)"?
I have to admit that I was also perplexed by the comment that 'nobody' made but I will reserve any judgment until they explain themselves.
"I have yet to see evidence that false accusations of rape are any more common than false accusations of any other crime)."
I'd imagine they'd vary from other accusations based on the motive for those false accusations. But if we constrained our eye to assault cases in general its probably true. They'll probably stay that way so long as nothing changes significantly in our legal system.
Unless of course some of the feminist proposals I've seen are actually taken up by the government (there was in the UK to reverse the burden of proof in sexual assault cases) it would certainly change that.
There are people who want to hurt other people, if you open a door for them to do it more easily, with less risk to themselves, why wouldn't they take it?
Criminals aren't stupid, if one crime is held to a vastly different standard of proof, and they want to get rid of someone, why make it hard on themselves?
Hypothetically, put yourself in the shoes of a criminal considering ways to get rid of someone you don't like. Now why go to the trouble of shooting someone when you can simply claim they assaulted you. If you get found out you get what, a public denunciation? Two years in jail if the DA really doesn't like you? If you had tried to actually kill the person you could easily be facing life imprisonment. You might have to live through the trial, but the trauma is massive for an actual victim who might be forced to relive their victimization. But if you weren't victimized you aren't reliving anything.
No, a single male individual will suffer when a false sexual assault/harassment/rape charge is made against him. I am not implying anything about what percentage of rape charges are false or not, as I have no information about that; I am merely saying that those men who do get falsely charged are often convicted anyways, because of rape being so publicized and mocked- always from the male pov though.
However, I do have a feeling that I may have misunderstood the OP.
...As a male, I was a lot more supportive of feminism when I was younger ( in my 20's and early 30's ), but over the last decade I've become quite disillusioned with feminism because it seems to have no place for men.
Men built the patriarchy, and I sincerely believe that feminists are going to have to find ways of being more inclusive of men, if they want to dismantle the current patriarchy.
From my personal perspective, I would think that any solution for the real world is going to have to work for everyone. (women/men/HLGBT)
I'm tired of seeing people accuse others of "what about the menz?"-ing, it's like when people disagree and then cry TROLL just because they can't make their point.
I feel what a lot of people on this site forget is that it is a VERY narrow section of the population that has unmitigated privilege. In our culture, that is early middle aged, Anglo, able-bodied, cis, strictly hetero, Christian, mid to upper class males. And even then, it is inaccurate to depict their lives as beds of roses. I think that is possible that some women have more privilege than some men.
I am incredibly offended when I see remarks about how we should "cut men's balls off" or disparage them for their "tiny dicks" because it's immature, petty, and - worst of all - it actually plays into the memes we're trying to dismantle (that rape is the result of men's uncontrollable sexuality; that men derive their power from their penis).
I digress, "what about the menz?"-ing someone is usually an attempt to get someone from talking about an uncomfortable interrelation/contradiction in viewpoints (I immediately think of female vs. male circumcision). When you erase men's experiences - whether about body image or anything else - everyone loses.
Middle class, middle aged, midwestern, straight white guy here with average size equipment, and I've never hesitated to call myself a feminist.
I became a feminist because of what my mother and grandmother and girlfriends had to put up with or had gone through purely because they were women. But I am not a feminist today because of my wife, or even solely for the sake of my daughter, but because I believe that the world is worse off if our life choices are constrained by gender, and that each human being should be free to choose their passions from the full spectrum of human experience.
Yeah, the "we should cut all their balls off!" stuff bugs me, but it's such a small minority, and it's nothing compared to the threats of actual sexual violence women I know personally have faced. So it doesn't bug me much.
As far as the question of why guys aren't offended by the "boys will be boys" reductionism, I guess that is the difference between guys and men. Guys revel in being able to get away with doing less; men recognize that we can do better, and want to encourage guys and boys to step up.